HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:30 PM - Thursday, October 12, 2017
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. RENTON RFA IMPACT FEES
a) AB - 1955 Community & Economic Development Department recommends initiating a
program to facilitate a change in practice that allows for the City to accept fire impact
fees on behalf of the Renton Regional Fire Authority.
b) Renton Regional Fire Authority Fire Impact Fees
2. LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM
a) AB - 1987 Community & Economic Development Department recommends approval of
the department's 2017 Long Range Planning Fall Work Schedule.
b) Green Building
c) Administrative Code Interpretations
d) Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Sites
e) Final Plat Authority
f) Group Homes
g) Title IV Text Amendment Exemptions
3. CITY CENTER COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS
4. SUPERVISED INJECTION FACILITIES
a) Supervised Injection Facilities
5. RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FEE
WAIVER
a) AB - 1999 Community & Economic Development Department request approval of a
blanket fee waiver for Renton Housing Authority (RHA) non-project National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) certifications required by the federal government.
AB - 1955
City Council Regular Meeting - 07 Aug 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Fire Impact Fees Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
EXT.: 6576
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Impact fees are an important financial tool that helps keep infrastructure in pace with new development,
while not compounding deficiencies and reducing overall levels of service. The City currently collects impact
fees on behalf of three school districts and for transportation, parks, and fire. Impact fees can only be
expended for physical improvements (streets and sidewalks, park land and improvements, and fire stations
and trucks) not administrative, operating, or maintenance costs. Renton revised its impact fee structure in
2012 and phased in rate increases.
Due to the formation of the Fire Authority, there is now a need to shift from the City collecting the fee directly
to the City collecting it on behalf of the Fire Authority (similar to the school impact fees). The Fire Authority
has begun the process of developing a Capital Facilities Plan, which will serve as the basis for the impact fee.
Similar to the process followed by school districts, the Fire Authority will submit the Capital Facilities Plan to
the City and request that the City collect the fire impact fee on their behalf later this year. The City also needs
to amend the code section regarding impact fees to facilitate this change in administration of the fire impact
fee. Finally, the City and the Fire Authority will need to adopt an interlocal agreement for the collection,
distribution, and expenditure of fire impact fees.
The Administration recommends initiating a program to complete this work.
EXHIBITS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Refer to the Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee for review. Following this review,
the Planning Commission will present recommendations to Council.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Fire Impact Fees
Staff: Angie Mathias
Date: September 20, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Renton Regional Fire Authority
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: With the formation of the Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA), the City
and the Fire Authority need to shift from the City collecting the fee directly to the City collecting
the fee on behalf of the Fire Authority (similar to the school impact fees). The Fire Authority has
adopted a Capital Facilities Plan, which will serve as the basis for the impact fee. Similar to the
process followed by school districts, the Fire Authority has submitted the Capital Facilities Plan
to the Council and requested that the City collect the fire impact fee on their behalf. The Code
section regarding impact fees needs to be amended to facilitate this change in the
administration of the fire impact fee. Additionally, the City needs to adopt the RRFA’s Capital
Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the
City needs to decide on approval or denial of the RRFA’s request to update the fire impact fee
rates.
List of Exhibits
Attachment A – Renton Regional Fire Authority Capital Facilities Plan
Attachment B – Renton Regional Fire Authority Fire Impact Fee Rate Study
Background
New growth and development create additional demand and need for public facilities. RCW
82.02.050 authorizes cities to charge impact fees so that the new growth and development
contribute a proportionate share toward the costs of new infrastructure (parks, roads, fire
stations and associated equipment, as well as, school facilities). Impact fees are an important
financial tool that helps keep infrastructure in pace with new development, while not
compounding deficiencies and reducing overall levels of service. They also help ensure that
current residents and businesses don’t assume the cost burden associated with maintaining
existing level of services standards as new growth occurs. Impact fees are paid one time by
developers of new construction projects and are used for improvements related to parks,
transportation, fire protection, and schools. The fees can only be expended for physical
improvements (park land and improvements, streets and sidewalks, fire stations and trucks,
and school facility land and improvements), not administrative, operating, or maintenance
costs.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
RRFA Fire Impact Fees Page 2 of 4 September 20, 2017
The City currently collects impact fees for transportation, parks, and fire, as well as, on behalf of
the Renton, Issaquah, and Kent school districts. However, because the newly formed RRFA is a
special purpose district and no longer a department within the City, code needs to be amended
so that the City can collect the impact fee on behalf of the RRFA. As part of the process the
RRFA has developed a Capital Facilities Plan (Attachment A) and a new Rate Study (Attachment
B). The Capital Facilities Plan must be adopted by reference in the Capital Facilities Element of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With the new Rate Study, the fire impact fee should also be
updated. A summary table of the current rate and the new proposed rate is below.
Use Per Current Rate Proposed Rate
Single Family Dwelling Unit $718.56 $829.77
Multi Family Dwelling Unit $718.56 $964.53
Hotel/Motel/Resort Square Foot $.94 $1.29
Medical Care Facility Square Foot $8.04 $3.92
Office Square Foot $.21 $.26
Medical/Dental Office Square Foot $1.26 $1.99
Retail Square Foot $.88 $1.25
Leisure Facilities Square Foot $1.98 $2.36
Restaurant/Lounge Square Foot $2.67 $5.92
Industrial/Manufacturing Square Foot $.12 $.15
Church/Non-Profit Square Foot $.36 $.56
Education Square Foot $.66 $.72
Special Public Facilities Square Foot $4.83 $4.48
Many jurisdictions in the area charge fire impact fees and now several collect them on behalf of
a fire authority. Below is a chart of the rate charged for single family dwellings by some other
jurisdictions. The RRFA’s proposed new rate of $829.77 for a single family dwelling is an
increase $111.21, but the increase is not substantial and is well below many other jurisdictions.
Their Capital Facilities Plan clearly identifies the requested rate is needed to ensure level of
service standards are not diminished as growth occurs.
City Per 2017 Rate
Auburn Dwelling Unit $326.66
Issaquah Dwelling Unit $769.44
Enumclaw Dwelling Unit $2,383.13
Kent Dwelling Unit $1,567.16
Maple Valley Dwelling Unit $1,739.61
Mill Creek Dwelling Unit $365.00
North Bend Dwelling Unit $622.25
Redmond Dwelling Unit $116.90
Tukwila Dwelling Unit $922.00
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
RRFA Fire Impact Fees Page 3 of 4 September 20, 2017
Staff Recommendation: Amend the impact fees code section to collect fire impact fees on
behalf of the Renton Regional Fire Authority. Adopt the Fire Authority’s Capital Facilities Plan
into the Capital Facilities element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Also, update the impact fee
rates as requested by the Fire Authority.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of growth, development, or conversion of
land as envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The collection of impact fees helps to ensure the City has the capacity to provide adequate
public facilities needed by new residents and businesses.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The amendments would work to further the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Amending
Code to collect fire impact fees on behalf of the RRFA and adopting their requested updated
fee amount helps the Authority to maintain service levels as growth occurs. This is supported
by goal CF-D “Ensure adequate long-term financial capacity exists to provide capital facilities
and services needed to support expected growth, while maintaining adopted level of service
standards”. Adopting the RRFA’s Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Capital Facilities Element
is supported by the proposed new policy of the current text amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. That proposed policy is CF-6 “Adopt by reference the most current Capital Facilities Plans
for Renton Regional Fire Authority and adopt an implementing ordinance establishing a fire
impact fee consistent with their Capital Facilities Plan, if the Plan demonstrates that the
facilities are needed to accommodate projected growth”.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
There are no capital improvements or expenditures being made or completed in association
with the proposed amendment.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments and collection of the requested fire impact fee work to further the
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
RRFA Fire Impact Fees Page 4 of 4 September 20, 2017
goals of the Growth Management Act and the CPP’s. Specifically, one of GMA’s goals is to
“Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be
adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and
use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.”
Additionally, CPP DP-3 is to “Efficiently develop and use residential, commercial, and
manufacturing land in the Urban Growth Area to create healthy and vibrant urban communities
with a full range of urban services, and to protect the long-term viability of the Rural Area and
Resource Lands. Promote the efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Area by using
methods such as: Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to designated
centers; Encouraging compact development with a mix of compatible residential,
commercial, and community activities; Maximizing the use of the existing capacity for housing
and employment; and Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, capital facilities and
services.”
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendment has no effect on critical areas or natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Capital Facilities Plan
Renton Regional Fire Authority
Prepared by BERK Consulting
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Growth Management Act Requirements ................................................................................................ 1-1
Definition of Capital Facilities ................................................................................................................. 1-1
Principles Guiding Capital Investments .................................................................................................. 1-2
RRFA History and Governance ................................................................................................................ 1-2
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................... 1-2
Current Conditions and Projected Growth ............................................................................................ 1-4
2.0 Current Inventory ..................................................................................................................... 2-5
Building Inventory ...................................................................................................................................... 2-5
Apparatus Inventory .................................................................................................................................. 2-5
3.0 Measuring Future Capital Facility Needs ............................................................................... 3-10
Level of Service Measures ..................................................................................................................... 3-10
Performance Measurement .................................................................................................................... 3-12
4.0 Summary of Facility Needs, 2017 – 2023 ............................................................................. 4-13
Apparatus Facility Needs....................................................................................................................... 4-13
Station Facility Needs ............................................................................................................................. 4-13
5.0 Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis ...................................................................................... 5-15
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 5-15
Funding the capital facilities plan ......................................................................................................... 5-15
Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4 dedicated capital revenues ............................................................................................................ 5-17
operating transfers .................................................................................................................................. 5-19
Six-Year Cost and revenue comparison .............................................................................................. 5-20
policy options and other funding sources ............................................................................................ 5-20
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Introduction ii
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. RRFA Service Area and Station Locations ........................................................................................ 1-3
Exhibit 1-2. RRFA Service Area Population and Projected Growth ................................................................. 1-4
Exhibit 2-1. Fire Station Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 2-5
Exhibit 2-2. Engines in RRFA Fleet ........................................................................................................................... 2-6
Exhibit 2-3. Aid Units in RRFA Fleet ........................................................................................................................ 2-6
Exhibit 2-4. Battalion Command Rigs in RRFA Fleet ............................................................................................ 2-7
Exhibit 2-5. Dive Apparatus in RRFA Fleet ............................................................................................................ 2-7
Exhibit 2-6. Aerial (Ladder) Apparatus in RRFA Fleet ........................................................................................ 2-7
Exhibit 2-7. Staff Vehicles in RRFA Fleet ............................................................................................................... 2-8
Exhibit 2-8. Miscellaneous Vehicles in RRFA Fleet ................................................................................................ 2-9
Exhibit 3-1. Total Cost of Response to All Incidents by Land Use Category ................................................ 3-11
Exhibit 3-2. RRFA Response Time Level of Service Standards ......................................................................... 3-12
Exhibit 4-2. RRFA Capital Costs for Apparatus, 2017-2023 .......................................................................... 4-13
Exhibit 4-3. RRFA Capital Facility Costs for Stations, 2018-2023 ................................................................. 4-14
Exhibit 5-1. Projected Remitted Fire Impact Fees 2018-2023, YOE$ ........................................................... 5-17
Exhibit 5-2. Projected Dedicated Capital Revenues and Costs, YOE$ .......................................................... 5-19
Exhibit 5-3. Projected Operating Transfers 2018-2023, YOE$..................................................................... 5-19
Exhibit 5-4. Total Projected Operating Transfers 2018-2023, YOE$ .......................................................... 5-20
Exhibit 5-5. Estimated Capital Facilities Revenues and Costs, YOE$ ............................................................. 5-20
Exhibit 5-6. Total Estimated Operating Transfers Revenues and Costs, YOE$ Error! Bookmark not defined.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
1-1
1.0 Introduction
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is to identify capital facility needs necessary for the
Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA) to achieve and maintain adopted standards for levels of service
concurrent with, or prior to, the impacts of expected development and population growth over the next
six years, 2018-2023, and consistent with the land use and transportation elements of the City of Renton
and King County comprehensive plans. This CFP also identifies sound fiscal policies and funding resources
for implementation.
CAPITAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that a county’s or city’s CFP should
consist of: a) an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities; b) a forecast of the future
needs for capital facilities; c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital
facilities; d) a six-year plan to finance capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly
identified sources of public money for such purposes; and e) a requirement to reassess the land use
element if probable funding falls short of existing needs. (RCW 36.70a.070(3)) GMA requires that all
capital facilities have “probable funding” to pay for capital facility needs, and that jurisdictions have
capital facilities in place and readily available when new development comes in or must be of sufficient
capacity when the population grows. The City of Renton prepares a CFP element as part of its
Comprehensive Plan. The City would incorporate the RRFA’s six-year plan for fire and emergency
services facilities into its Comprehensive Plan CFP. That allows the City to impose an impact fee. Impact
fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities addressed by a CFP element of a
comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to GMA. (RCW 82.02.050 (4))
Levels of service (LOS) are established in the CFP and represent quantifiable measures of capacity. They
are minimum standards established by the RRFA to provide capital facilities and services to RRFA service
area at a certain level of quality and within the financial capacity of the RRFA. As population grows, it is
expected that demands for fire and emergency response service will also grow. Additional facilities will
be necessary to meet this growing demand for service. LOS standards are influenced by local citizens,
elected and appointed officials, national standards, mandates, and other considerations, such as
available funding.
Growth, LOS standards, and a funded capital improvement program are to be in balance. In the case
where the LOS cannot be met by a service or facility, the jurisdiction could do one of the following: 1)
add proposed facilities within funding resources, 2) reduce demand through demand management
strategies, 3) lower LOS standards, 4) phase growth, or 5) change the land use plan.
DEFINITION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES
The CFP addresses public facilities necessary for providing fire and emergency response services. Capital
facilities generally have a long useful life and include RRFA owned and/or operated buildings, land,
equipment, and apparatus including engines and vehicles. Capital facilities planning does not cover
regular operation and maintenance, but it does include major repair, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of
facilities. RRFA financial management policies consider capital assets to be assets with values more than
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Introduction 1-2
$2,000 and an estimated useful life of more than one year.
PRINCIPLES GUIDING CAPITAL INVESTMENTS
There are two main guiding elements behind capital facilities planning: fiscal policies and the GMA. RRFA
plans to build on the capital planning executed by the City of Renton in its GMA Comprehensive Plan to
improve levels of service in the RRFA boundary. The CFP supports RRFA in making strategic capital
investments that support this effort.
RRFA intends to use the CFP as:
A tool for budgeting
The basis for capital spending, giving a degree of assurance about how public money will be spent
A useful guidance document for leadership and staff
Toward that end, RRFA has developed and used the following guidelines to evaluate projects before
adding them to the CFP:
Growth-related project costs should be timed to match with available remitted Fire Impact Fee
revenues.
Project costs that are not growth-related should be timed to match with revenues available through
operating transfers.
Projects should be spaced to allow for progress on RRFA’s other financial goals, especially its
Operating Reserve.
RRFA HISTORY AND GOVERNANCE
RRFA is a special purpose district that provides fire and medical emergency response services within the
City of Renton and King County Fire District (KCFD) 25. The RRFA was established on July 1, 2016, after
voters residing within KCFD 25 and the City of Renton approved Proposition 1. This legislation formed the
regional fire authority and authorized a fire benefit charge. Prior to the creation of the RRFA, service in
the City of Renton was provided by the Renton Fire & Emergency Services (RF&ES). KCFD 25 and KCFD
40 both contracted for services with the city.
Creation of the RRFA consolidated fire protection for the City of Renton and KCFD 25 under a single
special local government authority. The contract for fire protection with KCFD 40 remained in place and
transferred to RRFA. Accordingly, KCFD 40 is treated as part of the RRFA entity for the purposes of this
CFP.
SERVICE AREA
RRFA is located at the south end of Lake Washington, between Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue. The RRFA
total response area is 33.28 square miles, including the City of Renton (23.61 square miles), KCFD 25
(3.65 square miles), and KCFD 40 (6.02 square miles). KCFD 25 is located east of the city, north of State
Route 169. KCFD 40 is located east of the city, south of State Route 169. The RRFA service area is
bordered by unincorporated areas of King County, as well as the cities of Kent, Tukwila, Newcastle, and
Bellevue, with the City of Seattle just a few miles northwest. Exhibit 1-1 presents a map of the RRFA
service area and station locations.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Introduction 1-3
Exhibit 1-1. RRFA Service Area and Station Locations
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Introduction 1-4
CURRENT CONDITIONS AND PROJECTED GROWTH
Renton is the fourth largest city in King County with an estimated 2017 population of 102,700.1 The city
includes residential neighborhoods, a strong industrial base, and a growing commercial/office sector. The
city’s downtown and northern manufacturing area were designated as a regional growth center by the
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 1995. The northern part of the regional growth center borders
Lake Washington and emphasizes mixed use and regional employment, including the Boeing Company’s
Renton Plant and The Landing, a significant recent retail and residential development. The southern part
of the regional growth center includes the downtown core and adjacent residential area. Downtown
Renton has seen investment in recent years, including the Renton Pavilion Event Center and Piazza Park,
the Renton Transit Center, and the IKEA Performing Arts Center.2 The city also contains commercial
corridors, multifamily nodes, and extensive single-family neighborhoods. KCFD 25 and KCFD 40 mostly
contain residential areas located in King County outside of Renton city limits.
The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan includes a target for housing growth between 2012 and 2031 of
11,706 units, or 616 new units per year. Population projections for Renton, KCFD 25, and KCFD 40 for
the year 2023 are presented in Exhibit 1-2.3 The City of Renton is expected to grow by 6,725 residents,
81% of the total population growth forecasted for the RRFA service area.
Exhibit 1-2. RRFA Service Area Population and Projected Growth
Description 2016 Population Projected Growth 2017-2023
City of Renton 101,300 6,725
KCFD 25 7,847 346
KCFD 40 21,131 1,242
Total Service Area 130,278 8,312
City of Renton Share of Population
Growth
81%
Source: OFM, 2016; PSRC, 2017; BERK, 2017.
Since the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan does not include population growth targets, the projections
shown in Exhibit 1-2 are derived from a land use forecast produced by PSRC, the designated
Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Central Puget Sound Area which consists of King, Kitsap,
Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. PSRC is charged with regional growth management and transportation
planning. The regional growth and transportation strategies currently established by PSRC are contained
in Vision 2040, a planning document adopted by the PSRC in April of 2008. The forecast used in this
1 Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), 2017. http://ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp
2 Source: PSRC, Renton Regional Growth Center Profile 2013. https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/rgc-profile-renton.pdf
3 BERK analyzed land use forecast data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the City of Renton and
unincorporated areas inclusive of KCFD 25 and KCFD 40 to determine this projection for the six-year planning period. See
https://www.psrc.org/projections-cities-and-other-places
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Current Inventory 2-5
study, Land Use Vision, projects future growth for cities and smaller places. It reflects VISION 2040's
Regional Growth Strategy, local policies, and each county’s adopted growth targets. Planners with the
City of Renton have reviewed the projected growth in Land Use Vision for consistency with both the
Comprehensive Plan and local expectations for growth during the next six years.
2.0 Current Inventory
This section provides a current inventory of capital facilities that are either owned or operated by RRFA
including both stations and apparatus.
BUILDING INVENTORY
Exhibit 1-1 in Section 1 maps the locations and ownership of the six fire stations operated by RRFA as
well as the site of the future Fire Station 15 in the Kennydale neighborhood of northern Renton. Exhibit
2-1 provides station locations and square footage operated by RRFA.
Exhibit 2-1. Fire Station Inventory
Station Address Building Square
Footage Operated
by RRFA
Fire Station 11 211 Mill Ave S, Renton, WA 98057 16,595
Fire Station 12 1209 Kirkland Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056 17,011
Fire Station 13 18002 108th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055 20,487
Fire Station 13 (auxiliary
building)
18002 108th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055 3,596
Fire Station 14 1900 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 13,659
Fire Station 14 Tower 1900 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 3,658
Fire Station 16 12923 156th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98059 8,685
Fire Station 17* 14810 Petrovitsky Rd SE, Renton, WA 98058 6,883
* Fire Station 17 is owned by Fire District 40 and used by Renton RFA through service contract.
APPARATUS INVENTORY
RRFA has 11 engines in its fleet, as listed in Exhibit 2-2. Two are owned by KCFD 40 and maintained by
RRFA according to the service contract. Six engines are scheduled to be replaced before 2023.
Inventories of RRFA Aid Units, Battalion Command Rigs, Dive Apparatus, Aerial (Ladder) Apparatus, Staff
Vehicles, and Miscellaneous Vehicles are shown in Exhibits 2-3 through 2-8.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Current Inventory 2-6
Exhibit 2-2. Engines in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
2513 Eng. 161 Station 16 1996 E-One Cyclone II 2017 $886,193
F074 Eng. 111 Station 14 1999 E-One Cyclone II 2019 $886,193
F071 Eng. 121 Station 12 1999 E-One Cyclone II 2018 $886,193
F073 Eng. 131 Station 13 1999 E-One Cyclone II 2017 $886,193
2515 Eng. 16 Station 16 2003 E-One Cyclone II 2020 $886,193
F085 Eng. 14 Station 14 2005 E-One Cyclone II 2021 $886,193
F093 Eng. 12 Station 12 2008 E-One Quest 2024 $886,193
F115 Eng. 11 Station 11 2015 E-One Pumper
Cyclone
2031 $886,193
F114 Eng. 13 Station 13 2015 E-One Pumper
Cyclone
2031 $886,193
F432* Eng. 171 Station 17 2003 Spartan H&W Not currently planned*
F437* Eng. 17 Station 17 2006 Spartan H&W Not currently planned*
* F432 and F437 are owned by Fire District 40 and maintained by Renton RFA.
Exhibit 2-3. Aid Units in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F072 Aid 121 Station 12 1999 Navistar Northstar 2018 $393,629
2514 Aid 16 Station 16 2000 Navistar Northstar 2018 $393,629
F431 Aid 171 Station 17 2002 Ford Braun not scheduled $393,629
F439 Aid 17 Station 17 2011 Navistar Northstar not scheduled $393,629
F111 A 12 Station 12 2013 International Northstar 2021 $393,629
F110 A 13 Station 13 2013 International Northstar 2020 $393,629
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Current Inventory 2-7
Exhibit 2-4. Battalion Command Rigs in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F438 Batt 131 Station 13 2007 Chevy Tahoe not scheduled N/A
F119 Batt 12 Station 12 2016 Chevy Silverado 2024 $67,170
F109 Batt 13 Station 13 2013 Chevy Tahoe 2020 $67,170
Exhibit 2-5. Dive Apparatus in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F068 Dive 12 Station 12 1999 Ford F-550
4X4
2018 $265,000
F103 Dive 12 Station 12 2008 Polaris Inflatable
Boat
2018 $76,000
F070 Dive 12 Station 12 2008 EZ Loader Boat
Trailer
2018 $5,000
Exhibit 2-6. Aerial (Ladder) Apparatus in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F075 Lad 111 Station 14 1999 E-One Cyclone II 2018 $1,463,812
F105 Lad 11 Station 11 2011 E-One Cyclone II 2025 $1,463,812
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Current Inventory 2-8
Exhibit 2-7. Staff Vehicles in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F077 Insp 133 City Hall 2001 Jeep Cherokee 2020 $26,240
F079 Staff Station 13 2001 Ford Crown
Victoria
2017 $26,240
F429 Staff Station 13 2002 Ford Focus not scheduled $26,240
F082 Insp 131 Station 13 2003 Ford Expedition 2019 $26,240
F083 Insp 121 Station 13 2003 Chevy S10 Blazer 2020 $26,240
F086 City Hall 2006 Ford Escape 2020 $32,000
F087 Planning
12
City Hall 2008 Ford Escape 2019 $32,000
F089 Training Station 14 2008 Ford Escape 2019 $32,000
FO88 Training Sta14 2008 Ford F250 4x4 2019 $43,000
F095 Chief 12 City Hall 2009 Ford Escape
Hyb
2020 $58,862
F099 FM 13 Station 13 2009 Ford Escape
Hyb
2021 $26,240
F100 Chief 13 City Hall 2009 Ford Escape
Hyb
2021 $48,672
F098 Log.
Captain
Station 13 2009 Ford Escape
Hyb
2020 $32,000
F096 Insp. 132 Station 13 2009 Ford Escape
Hyb
2020 $26,240
F104 Rawson Station 14 2012 Ford Escape
Hyb
2022 $32,000
F117 Insp. 122 Station 13 2015 Ford CMAX
Hybrid
2025 $26,240
F113 On Duty
Fire Inv.
Station 13 2015 Dodge Promaster 2035 $25,000
F116 Chief 11 City Hall 2015 Ford Explorer/P
olice
2025 $48,672
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Current Inventory 2-9
Exhibit 2-8. Miscellaneous Vehicles in RRFA Fleet
Vehicle
Number
Call
Sign
Station
Assignment
Year Make Model Replacement
Year
Replacement
Cost (2017$)
F107 Rehab 1 Station 14 1991 Isuzu Hackney not scheduled N/A
F066 Logistics Station 13 1999 GMC Savannah 2018 $33,000
F108 Explorer Station 14 2000 Chevy Astro Van not scheduled $29,000
F106 Foam
Trailer
Station 14 2000 Fabrique Foam Trailer not scheduled N/A
F080 Utility 14 Station 14 2001 Ford Excursion 2017 $43,000
F436 Logistics
132
Station 13 2005 Chevy F-250 4X4 not scheduled $43,000
F092 Decon 17 Station 17 2007 Cargo-
Mate
Box Trailer not scheduled
F091 Brush 17 Station 17 2008 Ford F-550 4X4 2019 $150,000
F094 Club Car
Trailer
Station 14 2008 Eagle
Trailer
Vehicle Trailer 2020 $2,000
F101 Club Car Station 14 2008 Club Car 1550SE XRT not scheduled $18,000
F112 Training Training 2015 Ford F250 Crew 2025 $43,000
F120 Haz Mat
14
Station 14 2016 E-One M2 106 4x2
Freightliner
2036 $648,251
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Measuring Future Capital Facility Needs 3-10
3.0 Measuring Future Capital Facility Needs
GMA was enacted to provide local oversight of community growth with the intent for local governments
such as counties, cities, and towns, to monitor and mitigate the impacts of growth. GMA Goal 1 promotes
placing growth in urban areas where there are public facilities and services, while GMA Goal 12
promotes adequate facilities and services to support development:
(1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally
established minimum standards. (RCW 36.70A.020)
Concurrency for transportation infrastructure is mandated by GMA, and local agencies were given the
authority to establish concurrency guidelines for other public needs such as water, sewer, and fire
services:
(1) Purpose.
(a) The purpose of concurrency is to assure that those public facilities and services
necessary to support development are adequate to serve that development at the time it
is available for occupancy and use, without decreasing service levels below locally
established minimum standards.
(b) Concurrency describes the situation in which adequate facilities are available when the
impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. Concurrency ensures
consistency in land use approval and the development of adequate public facilities as
plans are implemented, and it prevents development that is inconsistent with the public
facilities necessary to support the development.
(c) With respect to facilities other than transportation facilities counties and cities may
fashion their own regulatory responses and are not limited to imposing moratoria on
development during periods when concurrency is not maintained. (WAC 365-196-840)
LEVEL OF SERVICE MEASURES
RRFA measures level of service (LOS) from two different perspectives. The first concerns the cost of
facilities for incident response per unit of development. The second perspective concerns turnout and
response times. Each is described below.
3.1.1. Cost of Facilities for Incident Response Per Unit of Development
In 2017 RRFA conducted a Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees. That study presents a methodology for
quantifying the need for fire and EMS stations and apparatus to serve new growth, for the purpose of
collecting fire impact fees. The level of service standard is the 2015 ratio of apparatus and stations to
fire and EMS incidents. More specifically, the rate study calculates the annualized facility value per
incident as well as the number of incidents produced by different kinds of development. This determines
the total cost of facilities for incident response needed per unit of development. This standard is used to
measure systemwide capacity of facilities to support incident response throughout the RRFA service area.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Measuring Future Capital Facility Needs 3-11
Full documentation of the methodology is available in the rate study. A brief summary follows.
For apparatus, including engines and other response vehicles, the ratio of apparatus to incidents as of
2015 was selected as an acceptable LOS standard. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, and
therefore more apparatus will be needed to maintain this standard.
For stations, the rate study measures LOS using the ratio of station square footage to incidents. However,
a deduction to the station square footage is made to account for unused beds that could accommodate
additional fire and emergency response staff. It is anticipated that much of the growth in the RRFA
service area will come in the form of infill development and increased density within the City of Renton.
As this growth occurs, the RRFA intends to utilize excess bed capacity in current stations to increase its
capacity for emergency response at existing stations.
Exhibit 3-1 shows the cost of response per unit of development (dwelling unit or square foot), by land use
category, as calculated in the RRFA Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees. These represent the total amount of
facility investment the RRFA would need to make to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs
within the service area.
Exhibit 3-1. Total Cost of Response by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Total Cost of Response to
EMS, Fire, & Other Incidents,
Per Unit of Development
Single-Family Residential d.u. $851.45
Multi-Family Residential d.u. $989.73
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. $1.32
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. $4.03
Office sq. ft. $0.27
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. $2.04
Retail sq. ft. $1.29
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. $2.42
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. $6.08
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. $0.15
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. $0.58
Education sq. ft. $0.73
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. $4.60
Source: RRFA Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees, 2017
3.1.2. Turnout and Response Time Standards
While existing stations have excess capacity for demand response, traffic and geographic barriers
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Measuring Future Capital Facility Needs 3-12
currently present challenges to providing adequate response time in some areas. For this reason, RRFA
also has turnout and response time standards for measuring performance across the entire service area
and by individual station.
In non-disaster situations, under current conditions of funding, staffing, and equipment, the RRFA aspires to
respond to 90% of the emergency service calls within 7 minutes and 30 seconds from the time of
dispatch, per City of Renton Resolution 3976, which was passed in October 2008 as an “aspirational
goal.” This standard was developed under a former Chief of the Renton Fire & Emergency Services
Department and inherited by RRFA. Though it does not have the force of law, as of July 1, 2016, the
RRFA continues to follow Resolution 3976, which states, “The Renton Fire & Emergency Services
Department aspires, in a non-disaster situation and under current funding, staffing and equipment, to
respond to 90% of the emergency service calls in the current service area within 7-1/2 minutes,”
throughout its entire response area.
This response time standard is also documented in Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department
Standard Operating Procedure Response Guideline Policy 4101. This policy also addresses turnout times,
or the interval that begins when audible or visual notification is received by firefighters from the 911
center and ends at the beginning point of travel time. Policy 4101 states: “Turnout time for emergency
response shall be expedient and no longer than one hundred twenty seconds.” These standards are
summarized in Exhibit 3-2.
Exhibit 3-2. RRFA Response Time Level of Service Standards
Service Standard Response Time Meet Response Time Goal
Turnout time for emergency response 2 minutes 100%
First unit arrival 7 minutes and 30 seconds from the
time of dispatch
90%
Measuring response time helps RRFA to identify where additional capacity may be necessary. It also
helps to identify where local conditions such as traffic or geographic barriers are presenting challenges
to responding to incidents in a timely manner.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
RRFA published a yearly assessment of performance with regards to several metrics related to response
time. For more information, see the Renton Regional Fire Authority Standards of Cover report.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Summary of Facility Needs, 2018 – 2023 4-13
4.0 Summary of Facility Needs, 2018 – 2023
The following is a summary of capital facility needs for the period of 2018 to 2023.
APPARATUS FACILITY NEEDS
Over the next six years, RRFA will need to replace 29 apparatus and add three additional apparatus to
its fleet. The inventory of apparatus in Section 2.2 provides year of replacement for all apparatus in the
current fleet. Exhibit 4-1 summarizes scheduled apparatus replacements and total costs through the year
2023. It also includes the cost of expansions to the RRFA vehicle fleet needed to serve new growth.4
Exhibit 4-1. RRFA Capital Costs for Apparatus, 2018-2023
Project Description Quantity Average
Unit Cost
Total Cost
(2017$)
Percentage Related to
City of Renton
Growth
Impact Fee
Eligible Costs
(2017$)
Apparatus Replacements
Aid Unit 4 $393,629 $1,574,516 0% $0
Battalion Command
Vehicle
1 $67,170 $67,170 0% $0
Dive Apparatus 3 $115,333 $346,000 0% $0
Ladder Truck 1 $1,463,812 $1,463,812 0% $0
Staff Vehicle 14 $33,427 $467,975 0% $0
Engine 6 $886,193 $5,317,158 0% $0
Miscellaneous 4 $57,000 $228,000 0% $0
Apparatus Fleet Expansions
Engine 2 $886,193 $1,772,386 59% $1,045,708
Aid Vehicle 1 $393,629 $393,629 59% $232,241
Apparatus Total $11,402,646 $1,277,949
Source: RRFA 2017; BERK 2017.
STATION FACILITY NEEDS
RRFA has three categories of station facility costs: debt servicing for existing stations, new station
construction, and renovations to address operational needs. The costs related to these needs are
summarized in Exhibit 4-2 and described in more detail below.
4 See the RRFA Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees (2017) for the methodology used to determine the proportion of growth-
related apparatus needs related to projected population growth inside the City of Renton.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Summary of Facility Needs, 2018 – 2023 4-14
Exhibit 4-2. RRFA Capital Facility Costs for Stations, 2018-2023
Project Description Total Cost
(2017$)
Percentage Related
to City of Renton
Growth
Impact Fee
Eligible Costs
(2017$)
Station Debt Servicing
Fire Station 13 Debt Service Payments $1,902,960 100% $1,902,960
New Station Development
Fire Station 15* $6,375,000 50% $3,187,500
Station Renovations for Operational Needs
All Stations: Alerting System Improvements $306,360 0% $0
All Stations: Bay Door Control Improvements $36,763 0% $0
Headquarters Renovation for Offices and Support
for Four Added Administrative Staff
$194,066 81% $157,194
Fire Station 11 Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$716,777 0% $0
Fire Station 12 Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$315,489 0% $0
Fire Station 13: Major remodel to improve turnout
time
$1,786,651 81% $1,447,187
Fire Station 13: Remodel for operational
improvements
$81,696 0.0% $0
Fire Station 14: Light Remodel for Low Acuity Unit
and Added Staff
$170,336 81% $137,972
Fire Station 14: Remodel for operational
improvements
$287,272 0% $0
Fire Station 16: Remodel for operational
improvements
$210,120 0% $0
Total Station Costs $12,383,490 $6,832,813
* While 50% of Station 15 costs are growth related, 100% of the cost of the station will be funded City of Renton and these
costs are not included in the RRFA funding plan.
Source: RRFA 2017; TCA 2017; BERK 2017.
4.2.1. Station 13 Debt Servicing
The City of Renton is paying debt service for Fire Station 13, a station operated by RRFA. Between
September 2017 and September 2023 these payments will total $1,902,960. The RRFA Rate Study for
Fire Impact Fees presents a methodology for calculating the proportion of these costs that are related to
serving new growth in the City of Renton.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-15
4.2.2. New Fire Station Needs
RRFA has identified the need for a new fire station in the Kennydale neighborhood on the north side of
Renton. This area has seen growth in recent years and presents significant response time challenges due
to increased traffic and geographic barriers. Building a new station will help improve response times
andincrease capacity to serve expected growth in the Port Quendall and South Lake Washington
revitalization area as well as traffic-related incidents on I-405. RRFA’s assessment of station needs to
meet response time standards has determined that 50% of this new station will address existing
deficiencies while 50% will expand capacity to serve future growth. Construction of Station 15 is
scheduled to begin in 2018. The total estimated cost of this station is $6,375,000. While 50% of these
costs are growth related, 100% of the cost of the station will be funded by City of Renton, and these
costs are not included in the RRFA funding plan.
4.2.3. Capital Projects Associated with Station Operational Needs
Exhibit 4-2 shows several renovation projects at existing stations necessary to address operational needs.
Some of these projects address existing needs while others will enhance the ability of RRFA to address
expected increases in service demands in several of its station areas. Appendix A provides a detailed
description of these needs and planned facility improvements.
5.0 Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis
OVERVIEW
This CFP revenue analysis supports the financing for providing facilities and services, as required by RCW
36.70A.070(3)(d). Revenue estimates, using assumptions based on historical trends, are used to represent
realistic expectations for revenue that may be available for capital funding.
This revenue analysis looks at RRFA’s capital facility revenues for those services provided by RRFA.
Capital expenses have been historically provided by the City of Renton, and RRFA is still developing its
policies for funding capital expenses. Through identifying future fiscal constraints and potential gap
funding options, project prioritization can be incorporated into the capital planning process.
This revenue analysis provides an approximate, and not exact, projection of future revenue sources.
The numbers projected in this analysis are for planning purposes and cannot account for sensitivities such
as local, state, and federal policy, economic trends, and other factors. This analysis may not align with
RRFA’s annual budget because it is based on multi-year projections of revenue, while the annual budget
presents precise estimates of available revenue for spending in the coming fiscal year.
FUNDING THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Estimated future revenues are projected for the Plan’s 2018 – 2023 time period. The revenue analysis is
categorized according to:
Dedicated Capital Revenues. Dedicated revenues are required to be used for certain types of
capital spending, outlined by the law. The dedicated capital revenues for RRFA include Fire Impact
Fees remitted to RRFA by the City of Renton.
Operating Transfers. Operating transfers-in are those revenue sources that are transferred in from
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-16
operating funds. Although these are not dedicated sources to be relied on for capital funding, RRFA’s
plans to make regular operating transfers-in to its reserves, including the Capital Facilities Reserve,
as funds allow. These transfers are not dedicated to capital spending and could be used elsewhere.
Potential Policy Options and Other Funding Sources. There are additional policy tools and sources
available to fund capital projects
ASSUMPTIONS
The RRFA revenue analysis is based on the following assumptions:
Analysis Boundary. The analysis includes the current RRFA boundary as shown in Exhibit 1-1.
Growth. Housing unit growth targets are published in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan,
adopted in 2015. It assumes an average annual net gain of 611 housing units, which is similar to the
rate of 598 units per year Renton experienced between 2010 and 2017. The historic ratio of
residential to non-residential growth in Renton is assumed to remain constant.
Property Tax. This analysis assumes that property tax revenues will increase at an annual rate of 1%
going forward, with the assessed value of new construction growing according to historic trends at
16.2% annually. Property taxes from new construction make up 2-3% of total property tax revenues
in the 6-year analysis period.
Fire Benefit Charge. In 2017, RRFA expects to receive revenues from its Fire Benefit Charge in the
amount of 88% of its total property tax revenues. Without historical trends to draw from, this
analysis assumes Fire Benefit Charges continue to bring in 88% of total property tax revenues in
each year of the analysis period.
Fire Impact Fees. In 2017, the City of Renton will adopt a new fire impact fee schedule based on
the 2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees. This analysis assumes the City of Renton will remit fees
collected in excess of its debt service payments on Fire Station 13. Projected residential impact fee
revenues are based on residential growth projections described above. Nonresidential impact fee
revenue is projected based on the average ratio of estimated nonresidential fire impact fee revenue
to estimated residential fire impact fee revenue in the City of Renton between 2014 and 2016.
Fire District 40 Service Contract. Renton RFA expects its service contract with Fire District 40 to
decrease in 2018 as staffing and other factors adjust. This analysis assumes that from 2018 forward
the service contract grows annually at its historical compound annual growth rate of 0.8%.
EMS Levy. This analysis assumes revenues from the EMS Levy continue to grow annually at its
historical compound annual growth rate of 4.48%.
Permits and Fees. This analysis assumes revenues from miscellaneous permits and fees grow at an
inflation rate of 3.0%.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-17
DEDICATED CAPITAL REVENUES
5.4.1. Fire Impact Fees
The City of Renton has collected Fire Impact Fees since 2011. Exhibit 5-1 shows the amount of remitted
Fire Impact Fees RRFA is projected to receive from the City of Renton in year of expenditure dollars
(YOE$). The City of Renton’s debt service payments are scheduled to increase substantially in 2021, and
the amount of RRFA’s estimated remitted Fire Impact Fees decreases from that point forward.
Exhibit 5-1. Projected Remitted Fire Impact Fees 2018-2023, YOE$
Source: City of Renton, 2017; BERK, 2017.
Remitted Fire Impact Fees must be used for growth-related Capital Facilities costs.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-18
Exhibit 5-2 compares the total remitted Fire Impact Fees revenues RRFA is projected to receive over the
planning period to YOE$ growth-related project costs, as presented in Exhibit 4-1 and Exhibit 4-2.5
5 Project costs presented in YOE$ use a 3.0% inflation factor to account for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar.
Project costs presented in YOE$ do not match project costs listed in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-19
Exhibit 5-2. Projected Dedicated Capital Revenues and Costs, YOE$
Dedicated Revenues and Project Costs 2018-2023 Total Revenues and Costs
Fire Impact Fee Revenues (remitted) $3,100,000
Planned Growth-Related Project Costs $3,489,000
Estimated Dedicated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $(389,000)
Source: City of Renton, 2017; Renton RFA, 2017; TCA, 2017; BERK, 2017.
OPERATING TRANSFERS
RRFA plans to transfer-in operating funds to several reserves, some of which have fund balances from
transfers-in by the City of Renton. RRFA has specific goals for the following reserves: Operating Reserve,
Contingency Reserve, IT Reserve, and Small Tools & Equipment Reserve. RRFA also plans to use its Fleet
Replacement Reserve, with a current balance of $3,040,450, to make scheduled fleet replacements over
the planning period. RRFA’s funding streams for these transfers-in and for Capital Facilities costs include
revenues from its property tax, fire benefit charge, Fire District 40 service contract, EMS Levy, and
miscellaneous permits and fees. Exhibit 5-3 shows RRFA’s projected revenues available for transfers and
Capital Facilities costs, calculated as YOE$ projected revenues less YOE$ expected expenses.6
Exhibit 5-3. Projected Operating Transfers 2018-2023, YOE$
Source: Renton RFA, 2017; BERK, 2017.
Exhibit 5-4 summarizes projected revenues available for operating transfers-in over the planning period.
6 Given Renton RFA’s changing financial policies, and the unavailability of detailed historical financial information, BERK
worked with Renton RFA to project expenditures according to current cost and cost growth assumptions.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-20
Exhibit 5-4. Total Projected Operating Transfers 2018-2023, YOE$
Operating Transfers-In 2018-2023
Estimated Available Revenues $19,472,000
Source: Renton RFA, 2017; BERK, 2017.
SIX-YEAR COST AND REVENUE COMPARISON
This six-year comparison looks at RRFA’s total revenues and planned project costs for the six-year
planning horizon of 2018-2023 in order to understand the difference between future dedicated capital
costs and potential future revenues. Capital costs are presented in YOE$ and include growth-related
capital costs, planned project costs, and apparatus replacement costs. Exhibit 5-5 summarizes estimated
Capital Facilities revenues and costs.7
Exhibit 5-5. Estimated Capital Facilities Revenues and Costs, YOE$
Capital Facilities Revenues and Costs 2018-2023
Growth-Related Capital Costs $3,489,000
Capital Replacement and Project Costs, not Growth-Related $11,396,000
Total Costs $14,885,000
Impact Fee Revenue $3,100,000
Operating Transfer Potential Revenue $19,472,000
Estimated Funding Surplus/(Deficit) $7,687,000
Source: TCA, 2017; Renton RFA, 2017; BERK, 2017.
RRFA plans to use available operating revenues to fund other reserves in anticipation of changes to
operating needs including: the expiration of its inter-local agreement with the City of Renton for office
space, IT, and Fleet and Facilities Maintenance; and fleet and apparatus replacements. RRFA also plans
to contribute annually to the Operating Reserve, with a goal of building a balance equal to 33% of its
operating budget. Because financial policies are in flux regarding the schedule for those planned
transfers, they are not included in the six-year cost and revenue comparison.
POLICY OPTIONS AND OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
Two additional funding source options are:
7 Project costs presented in YOE$ use a 3.0% inflation factor to account for changes in the purchasing
power of the dollar. Project costs presented in YOE$ do not match project costs listed in Exhibit 5-1and
Exhibit 5-2.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2018 – 2023 Renton RFA CFP | Capital Facilities Revenue Analysis 5-21
Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds: Financing bonds that do not require voter approval
and are payable from the issuers general fund and other legally available revenue sources.
Unlimited Tax General Obligation (UTGO) Bonds: Financing bonds that require voter approval
and include the levying of an additional tax to repay them.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees
Renton Regional Fire Authority
Prepared by BERK Consulting
An update to a 2011 study by Henderson, Young & Company
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1-1
Fire Impact Fee Rate Schedule ................................................................................................................ 1-1
Study Organization ................................................................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 Statutory Basis ......................................................................................................................... 2-1
Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees ................................................................................................ 2-1
Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees ............................................................... 2-2
3.0 Fire Impact Fee Methodology .................................................................................................. 3-6
Service Area ............................................................................................................................................... 3-6
Data Sources and Rounding..................................................................................................................... 3-8
Level of Service .......................................................................................................................................... 3-8
Capital Cost of Response Calculations ................................................................................................ 3-10
Capital Projects Eligible for Impact Fees ............................................................................................ 3-65
Impact Fee Rate Adjustments ................................................................................................................. 3-73
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. Fire Impact Fee Rate Schedule .......................................................................................................... 1-2
Exhibit 3-1. Renton Regional Fire Authority Service Area and Stations .......................................................... 3-7
Exhibit 3-2. Emergency Response Bed Capacity by Station ............................................................................ 3-10
Exhibit 3-3. Renton RRA Apparatus Inventory and Emergency Responses .................................................... 3-11
Exhibit 3-4. Renton RFA Building Inventory and Building Square Feet per Incident .................................... 3-17
Exhibit 3-5. Annualized Apparatus Cost .............................................................................................................. 3-18
Exhibit 3-6. Apparatus Costs per Response ........................................................................................................ 3-19
Exhibit 3-7. Annual Fire/Other and EMS Incidents ............................................................................................ 3-20
Exhibit 3-8. Fire/Other Responses per Incident by Apparatus Type ............................................................. 3-21
Exhibit 3-9. Apparatus Cost per Fire/Other Incident ........................................................................................ 3-21
Exhibit 3-10. Staff Vehicle and Other Equipment/Apparatus Cost per Incident......................................... 3-22
Exhibit 3-11. Annualized Station Cost per Square Foot ................................................................................... 3-23
Exhibit 3-12. Station Cost per Incident ................................................................................................................ 3-24
Exhibit 3-13. Fire/Other Incidents by Location .................................................................................................. 3-25
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Introduction ii
Exhibit 3-14. Fire/Other Incidents at Specific Land Uses ................................................................................. 3-29
Exhibit 3-15. Fire/Other Incidents in Roads and Streets - Allocated to Land Uses ..................................... 3-30
Exhibit 3-16 Total Fire/Other Incidents by Land Use ....................................................................................... 3-31
Exhibit 3-17. Annual Fire/Other Incident Rate by Land Use ........................................................................... 3-32
Exhibit 3-18. Engine Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ........................ 3-33
Exhibit 3-19. Ladder Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ....................... 3-34
Exhibit 3-20. Aid Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ............... 3-35
Exhibit 3-21. Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of
Development ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-36
Exhibit 3-22. Brush Truck Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ................ 3-37
Exhibit 3-23. Inspector Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development...... 3-38
Exhibit 3-24. Battalion Chief Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development 3-
39
Exhibit 3-25. Dive Apparatus Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ........ 3-40
Exhibit 3-26. Staff Vehicle Cost per Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of Development .................................. 3-41
Exhibit 3-27. Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of
Development ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-42
Exhibit 3-28. Fire Station Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of Development ................. 3-43
Exhibit 3-29. Example of Calculation of Total Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents for a Single-
Family Residential Dwelling Unit ........................................................................................................................... 3-44
Exhibit 3-30. Total Capital Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development ............ 3-45
Exhibit 3-31. EMS Response per Incident Rate by Apparatus Type .............................................................. 3-46
Exhibit 3-32. Apparatus Cost per EMS Incident ................................................................................................. 3-47
Exhibit 3-33. EMS Incidents by Location .............................................................................................................. 3-48
Exhibit 3-34. EMS Incidents at Specific Land Uses ............................................................................................. 3-49
Exhibit 3-35. EMS Incidents in Roads and Streets - Allocated to Land Uses ................................................ 3-50
Exhibit 3-36. Total EMS Incidents by Land Use .................................................................................................. 3-51
Exhibit 3-37. Annual EMS Incident Rate by Land Use ....................................................................................... 3-52
Exhibit 3-38. Engine Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development .................................... 3-53
Exhibit 3-39. Ladder Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ................................... 3-54
Exhibit 3-40. Aid Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ........................... 3-55
Exhibit 3-41. Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development . 3-
56
Exhibit 3-42. Inspector Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ................. 3-57
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Introduction iii
Exhibit 3-43. Battalion Chief Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ....... 3-58
Exhibit 3-44. Dive Apparatus Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ................... 3-59
Exhibit 3-45. Staff Vehicle Cost per EMS Incident, per Unit of Development .............................................. 3-60
Exhibit 3-46. Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost of Response to EMS Incident, per Unit of Development ... 3-
61
Exhibit 3-47. Fire Station Cost of Response to EMS Incident, per Unit of Development ............................. 3-62
Exhibit 3-48. Example of Calculation of Total Cost of Response to EMS Incidents for a Single-Family
Residential Dwelling Unit ........................................................................................................................................ 3-63
Exhibit 3-49. Total Capital Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development ........................ 3-64
Exhibit 3-50. Total Cost of Response to All Incidents by Land Use Category .............................................. 3-65
Exhibit 3-51. RRFA Service Area Population and Projected Growth ............................................................. 3-66
Exhibit 3-52. Total Incidents Per Capita, Renton RFA Service Area ............................................................... 3-67
Exhibit 3-53. Projection of Annual Incidents Associated with City of Renton Growth, 2023 ..................... 3-67
Exhibit 3-54. Baseline Front-Line Apparatus Responses per Incident, 2015 ................................................ 3-68
Exhibit 3-55. Projected Apparatus Need Associated with City of Renton Growth, 2018 - 2023 ........... 3-68
Exhibit 3-56. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Associated with Planned Additions to RRFA Fleet ....................... 3-68
Exhibit 3-57. Value of Station Capacity Needed for Growth-Related Response Staffing Increases ..... 3-69
Exhibit 3-58. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Associated with Past System Improvements .................................. 3-70
Exhibit 3-59. Station Capital Costs Associated with Growth-Related Operational Needs ....................... 3-70
Exhibit 3-60. RRFA Capital Costs for Apparatus, 2018-2023 ....................................................................... 3-71
Exhibit 3-61. RRFA Capital Facility Costs for Stations, 2018-2023 .............................................................. 3-72
Exhibit 3-62. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Compared to Projected Impact Fee Revenues, 2018-2023 ..... 3-73
Exhibit 3-62. Fire Impact Fee Rate Schedule ...................................................................................................... 3-74
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
1-1
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the Renton Regional Fire Authority
(RRFA) for fire protection facilities authorized by RCW 82.02.090(7).1 The RRFA serves both the City of
Renton and King County Fire Protection District 25. However only the City of Renton will be implementing
impact fees based on this rate study.
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the capital cost of
public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who occupy or use the new
development. Throughout this study, the term “developer” is used as a shorthand expression to describe
anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners, or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons:
to obtain revenue to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities;
to implement a public policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that
it requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and
to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to serve new development.
In 2011 the City of Renton completed an impact fee rate study that included fee calculations for fire
protection facilities.2 This RRFA fire impact fee rate study updates and replaces the 2011 rate study for
fire protection facilities only. While the methodology used in this rate study is generally consistent with
the methodology used in the 2011 study, this new study includes some refinements to reflect the RRFA’s
current approach to measuring level of service and its ability to serve growth-related service demands in
the future, as described in Chapter 3. Much of the text in this rate study is adapted and updated from
the 2011 rate study.
FIRE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development within the City of Renton.3 Impact fee rates for
new development are based on, and vary according to, the type of land use. Additionally, impact fee
rates reflect discounts based on available funds to pay for eligible capital projects. Exhibit 1-1 shows the
fire impact fee rates adopted within the City of Renton.
1 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of Washington State.
2 Henderson, Young & Company. (2011). Rate Study for Impact Fees, City of Renton.
3 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or “broad public purposes”, but such
exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to
changes in use, remodeling, etc.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Introduction 1-2
Exhibit 1-1. Fire Impact Fee Rate Schedule
Land Use Unit Fire Impact Fee
Single-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $829.77
Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $964.53
Hotel/Motel/Resort Square Foot $1.29
Medical Care Facility Square Foot $3.92
Office Square Foot $.26
Medical/Dental Office Square Foot $1.99
Retail Square Foot $1.25
Leisure Facilities Square Foot $2.36
Restaurant/Lounge Square Foot $5.92
Industrial/Manufacturing Square Foot $.15
Church/Non-Profit Square Foot $.56
Education Square Foot $.72
Special Public Facilities Square Foot $4.48
STUDY ORGANIZATION
This rate study includes three chapters.
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and fire impact fee rate schedule.
Chapter 2 summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in Washington State, and describes
how the RRFA’s impact fees comply with the statutory requirements.
Chapter 3 includes the RRFA service area, level of service used for the purpose of calculating impact
fee rates, and the methodology for calculating the capital costs of response by unit of development.
It also provides a list of growth-related capital projects that are eligible for impact fees and final
adjustments to the impact fee rates to account for eligible costs and future payments of other
revenues.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2-1
2.0 Statutory Basis
This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in Washington State, and describes
how the RRFA’s impact fees comply with the statutory requirements.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess.) authorizes
local governments in Washington State to charge impact fees. RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.110 contain the
provisions of the Growth Management Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the Revised
Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public transportation and roads; 2)
publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection
facilities. (RCW 82.02.090(7))
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on “system improvements” (which are typically outside the development), as
opposed to “project improvements” (which are typically provided by the developer on-site within the
development). Impact fees can never be used to fund maintenance or operational needs. (RCW
82.02.050(2) and RCW 82.02.090(5) and (9))
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which will
benefit new development. (RCW 82.02.050(4)(a) and (c)). Local governments must establish reasonable
service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government),
and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land uses. (RCW
82.02.060(7))
Proportionate Share
Capital improvement costs can be funded using impact fees to the extent that the improvements are
reasonably related to the new development and reasonably benefit the new development. Costs
assessed on a development cannot exceed its proportionate share of the costs of system improvements.
The impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that
determines the proportionate share. (RCW 82.02.050(4)(b) and RCW 82.02.060(1))
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if such
payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). (RCW 82.02.050(1)(c)
and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(1)(b)) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP as
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Statutory Basis 2-2
system improvements eligible for impact fees and are required as a condition of development approval).
(RCW 82.02.060(4))
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income housing
and other “broad public purpose” development, but all such exempt fees must be paid from public funds
(other than impact fee accounts). (RCW 82.02.060(3))
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. (RCW
82.02.060(6)). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. (RCW
82.02.070(4) and (5)). The developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees if the local government
fails to expend or obligate the impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee
requirement, or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no impacts). (RCW
82.02.080)
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element or used to
reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. The CFP must conform to the
Growth Management Act of 1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and additional facility
capacity needed for new development. (RCW 82.02.050(4), RCW 82.02.060(8), and RCW
82.02.070(2))
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a)) and for the unused capacity
of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(8)) subject to the proportionate share limitation described
above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend or obligate the money on
CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures. (RCW
82.02.070(1)-(3))
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES
Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in Chapter 3 of this study which presents the
calculation of the fire impact fees. Some of the statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as
described below.
Types of Public Facilities
This study contains impact fees for fire protection facilities as authorized by statute. The RRFA both define
fire protection facilities to include engines, vehicles, and equipment in addition to fire stations. The City of
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Statutory Basis 2-3
Renton uses these same definitions (RMC 4-1-190).
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for specific
public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Renton is legally and financially
responsible for the fire facilities it owns within its jurisdiction. However, the majority of fire facilities within
the City of Renton have been transferred to the RRFA. A local government may charge impact fees for
facilities that are “owned or operated by government entities” (RCW 82.02.090 (7)). A city may charge
impact fees for fire, and enter into an agreement with a regional fire authority (RFA) for the transfer,
expenditure, and reporting of fire impact fees for the RFA. A city may only charge and use impact fees
on RFA projects if it has an agreement with the RFA, and the city’s CFP references the RFA CFP.
Types of Improvements
The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are described in Chapter 3. No
project improvements are included in this study.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are “system improvements” (which are typically
outside the development), and “designed to provide service to service areas within the community at
large” as provided in RCW 82.02.090(9)), as opposed to “project improvements” (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the development), and
“designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use
and convenience of the occupants or users of the project” as provided in RCW 82.02.090(5). The capital
improvements costs contained in Chapter 3 comply with these requirements.
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees cannot be used for
operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees
include design studies, engineering, land surveys, land and right of way acquisition, engineering,
permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable mitigation costs, and capital
equipment pertaining to capital improvements.
Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees: 1) proportionate
share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050(4)). In
addition, the law requires the designation of one or more service areas. (RCW 82.02.060(7))
Proportionate Share.
First, the “proportionate share” requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for the
portion of the cost of public facilities that is “reasonably related” to new development. In other
words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating deficiencies in
existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that are not
specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law:
Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users must be apportioned
between the two groups in determining the amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either
of two ways: (1) by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2) calculating
the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new development when calculating impact fees.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Statutory Basis 2-4
Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be based on the
government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be added to reflect the government's actual or
imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement to
provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements ensure that
the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
The “adjustments” requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and future payments
of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or proratable to, the system
improvements that are needed to serve new growth). The impact fees calculated in this study
include an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that is paid by new development and
used by the City to pay for a portion of growth’s proportionate share of costs. This adjustment is
in response to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2).
The “credit” requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land, improvements or
construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as
the projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a condition of
development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing
reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land can
be required to be acceptable to the local government.
Reasonably Related to Need
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be “reasonably related” to the
development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family or
business enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services to
the fee-paying property or are customers or visitors at the fee-paying property (indirect benefit),
and geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by
the following techniques:
Impact fees are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit from) new public facilities. The
RRFA provides fire protection facilities to serve all kinds of property throughout its service area,
therefore impact fees have been calculated for all types of property.
The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee amounts (i.e.,
different impact values for different types of land use). For instance, this study analyzed
fire/other and EMS incident and response data to determine rates for each type of land use.
Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their development will have less
impact than is presumed in the impact fee schedule calculation for their property classification.
Such reduced needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use restrictions).
Reasonably Related to Expenditures
Two provisions of Renton’s impact fee ordinance comply with the requirement that expenditures be
“reasonably related” to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee
revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are
on specific projects, the benefit of which has been demonstrated in determining the need for the
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Statutory Basis 2-5
projects and the portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as described
in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended or obligated within 10 years, thus
requiring the impact fees to be used to benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City.
Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas that are smaller
than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not required to use multiple service
areas unless such “zones” are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee and the
development. Because of the compact size of the RRFA and the accessibility of its fire facilities to all
property within the service area, the RRFA’s fire systems serve the entire RRFA service area,
therefore the impact fees are based on a single service area corresponding to the boundaries of the
RRFA.
Exemptions
The City of Renton’s impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions. Exemptions do not affect
the impact fee rates calculated in this study because of the statutory requirement that any exempted
impact fee must be paid from other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to
make up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as a result of the
exemption.
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact fees. The developer can
submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than
the impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the
RRFA. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 10 years of receipt of such
payments, the developer can obtain a refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund
if the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. These provisions are addressed in the
City’s impact fee ordinance, and none of them affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study.
Capital Facilities Plan
There are references in RCW to the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) as the basis for projects that are
eligible for funding by impact fees. The RRFA published a CFP in August 2017 which fulfills the
requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et. seq. pertaining to a “capital facilities plan”. This CFP is referenced
in the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan.
The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new development, and
additional public facility capacity needed for new development is determined by analyzing levels of
service for fire/other and emergency response. Chapters 3 provides this analysis.
New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital facilities plan, or they can
be used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. Washington State
GMA states that an impact fee ordinance “[m]ay provide for the imposition of an impact fee for system
improvement costs previously incurred by a county, city, or town to the extent that new growth and
development will be served by the previously constructed improvements provided such fee shall not be
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-6
imposed to make up for any system improvement deficiencies.” (RCW 82.02.060(8)) The rate calculations
in Chapter 3 affirm there are no existing deficiencies and accounts for excess station capacity
systemwide for serving new growth. Because of this excess systemwide capacity, impact fees collected
can be used to pay for the debt servicing of existing stations not to exceed the proportional share of
existing station value that is available for serving additional growth.
Impact fee payments that are not expended or obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the
City Council makes a written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the fees
for longer than 10 years. To verify these two requirements, impact fee revenues must be deposited into
separate accounts of the government, and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and
expenditures. These requirements are addressed by Renton’s impact fee ordinance, and are not factors in
the impact fee calculations in this study
3.0 Fire Impact Fee Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology used to calculate impact fee rates for fire protection facilities. It
begins with a discussion of the service area considered for the rate study analysis. This is followed by a
discussion of the level of service. Next is an inventory of fire protection facilities, which are defined to
include stations, equipment, and apparatus (such as engines and other vehicles). Then a series of
calculations are presented to document the methodology for determining the total facility costs per unit of
development by land use type.
SERVICE AREA
As noted above, RRFA include both the City of Renton and King County Fire Protection District 25. It also
provides service to King County Fire Protection District 40 under contract, as shown in Exhibit 3-1. RRFA
provides services to these areas as one integrated system. All facilities needed to serve these areas are
owned and/or operated by RRFA. Therefore, the analysis in this rate study considers facility costs per unit
of development throughout the entire service area, inclusive of Fire District 40.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-7
Exhibit 3-1. Renton Regional Fire Authority Service Area and Stations
While this rate study considers incidents and facilities throughout the RRFA service area when calculating
impact fee rates, the RRFA CFP identifies the percentage of capital facilities needs that are directly
related to anticipated growth within the City of Renton only. This ensures that impact fees collected in the
City of Renton are not used to pay for capital facility costs associated with growth expected in Fire
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-8
District 25 or Fire District 40.
DATA SOURCES AND ROUNDING
The data in this study of impact was provided by the RRFA, unless a different source is specifically cited.
Incident and response data reflect conditions in the years 2015, as do data about units of development
within the service area.
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this study,
there may be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a calculator based on
the same values presented. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software
calculates results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables of these reports. The
calculation to extra places after the decimal increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes
occasional minor differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The need for fire protection facilities is influenced by a variety of factors, such as response time, call
loads, geographical area, topographic and manmade barriers, and standards of the National Fire
Protection Association, and the National Commission on the Accreditation of Ambulance Services. For the
purpose of quantifying the need for fire and EMS apparatus to serve growth this study uses the ratio of
apparatus and stations to incidents. To measure this ratio, this study analyzes both facility inventory and
incident data. For apparatus, the current ratio of apparatus to incidents provides an acceptable level of
service (LOS), and there are no deficiencies. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, and therefore
more apparatus will be needed to maintain this standard.
For stations, LOS is measured in two different ways. The first approach mirrors the LOS standard used for
apparatus by measuring using the ratio of station square footage to incidents. This approach accounts for
the systemwide demands for response created by new growth. From this perspective, the current
inventory of stations includes excess capacity to serve growth, as shown in
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-9
Exhibit 3-2. This capacity comes in the form of beds necessary for staffing fire and emergency response
facilities and apparatus. It is anticipated that much of the growth in the RRFA service area will come in the
form of infill development and increased density within the City of Renton. As this growth occurs, the RRFA
intends to utilize excess bed capacity in current stations to increase its capacity for emergency response
at existing stations. Systemwide, this analysis finds that 66% of station capacity is in use. The remaining
34% of station capacity is available to serve new growth.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-10
Exhibit 3-2. Emergency Response Bed Capacity by Station
Station Name Total Beds Currently in Use Percentage of Capacity in
Use
Fire Station 11 6* 6 100%*
Fire Station 12 10 6 60%
Fire Station 13 8 6 75%
Fire Station 14 8 3 38%
Fire Station 16 6 3 50%
Fire Station 17** 6 5 83%
Totals 44 29 66%
* Station 11 currently has no excess capacity due to limitations in space for additional apparatus. Therefore, the total bed
count is reduced to only those currently in use.
** Station 17 is owned by Fire District 40 but considered in this rate study when valuing facility costs per incident, given that
the RRFA provides service to Fire District 40 as a single integrated system. This is consistent with the 2011 Rate Study.
While existing stations have excess capacity for demand response, the geography of service demands
are changing in Renton. For this reason, RRFA also has turnout and response time standards. In non-
disaster situations, under current conditions of funding, staffing, and equipment, the RRFA aspires to
respond to 90% of the emergency service calls within 7 minutes, 30 seconds from the time of dispatch,
per City of Renton Resolution 3976, which was passed in October 2008 as an “aspirational goal.” This
standard was developed under a former Chief of the Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department and
inherited by RRFA. Though it does not have the force of law, as of July 1, 2016, the RRFA continues to
follow Resolution 3976, which states, “The Renton Fire & Emergency Services Department aspires, in a
non-disaster situation and under current funding, staffing and equipment, to respond to 90% of the
emergency service calls in the current service area within 7-1/2 minutes,” throughout its entire response
area.
New growth and increased traffic in the Kennydale neighborhood and Lake Washington waterfront area
have resulted in failure to meet these response time standards. To address this problem, RRFA plans to
build a new station. Construction on Fire Station 15 is expected to begin in 2018. This station will both
increase the systemwide capacity for demand response as well as improve response times in the
Kennydale neighborhood and I-405.
CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSE CALCULATIONS
This section guides the reader through a series of formulas and calculations with the goal of determining
the total capital costs of response by unit of development. It begins with an inventory of fire apparatus
and stations and the number of emergencies to which the RRFA responded. Next is an analysis of the
capital cost of fire protection apparatus and stations including calculation of the capital cost per
response. The emergency responses are summarized according to the types of land uses that received
responses, and incident rates are calculated to quantify the average number of emergency responses per
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-11
unit of development for each type of land use. The costs per response and the response incident rates are
used to calculate the number and cost of responses to fire/other4 incidents and to EMS incidents (basic
life support medical responses) at each type of land use. The fire/other and EMS cost per unit of
development are combined to calculate the total cost per unit of development. The total cost is adjusted
for payments of other and the result is the fire impact fee rates for the City of Renton.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables of data, and
explanation of calculations of fire impact fees.
Formula F-1: Inventory and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Responses
The RRFA owns and/or operates a variety of fire apparatus (i.e., fire engines, ladder trucks, aid vehicles,
etc.). Each vehicle responds to many emergencies. The average number of EMS responses per apparatus
is used as one element in calculating the cost per EMS response.
Formula F-1: EMS
Responses ÷ Fire
Apparatus = Responses per
Apparatus
There are three variables that require explanation: (A) fire apparatus, (B) emergency responses, and (C)
fire stations.
Variable (A): Fire Apparatus
The term “fire apparatus” applies to vehicles that the RRFA uses for two categories of emergency
responses: medical emergencies (EMS) and fire/other emergencies. RRFA provides Basic Life Support
(BLS) responses and is typically the first responder to medical emergencies within its service area.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) is provided by King County. ALS costs are not included in the RRFA fire
impact fee. So, references to EMS incidents in this study include only BLS incidents. Exhibit 3-3 contains a
list of each type of primary fire apparatus and the number of each type.
Exhibit 3-3. Renton RRA Apparatus Inventory and Emergency Responses
Type of Apparatus Count of
Apparatus
in Inventory
Total Annual EMS
Responses
EMS Responses per
Individual Apparatus
Engine 11 10,528 957
Ladder 2 1,874 937
Aid Vehicle 6 6,908 1,151
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 152 152
4 In this study, “fire/other” refers to all emergency incidents to which RRFA responds except for medical emergencies/EMS.
These would include fires, hazardous materials, gas leaks, and other non-medical related emergencies.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-12
Brush Truck 1 16 16
Inspector Vehicles 4 192 48
Battalion Chief Vehicles 3 1,147 382
Dive Apparatus 3 34 11
Staff Vehicles 14 - -
Other Apparatus/Equipment 10 - -
Total 55 20,851
Variable (C): Fire Stations
RRFA provides fire and EMS services out of six stations.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-13
Exhibit 3-4 lists the six stations and the total square footage of fire stations and associated support
facilities (i.e., EOC, shop, and tower).
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-14
Exhibit 3-4 also shows the total fire/other and EMS incidents, and the average square footage of fire
station per incident (calculated by dividing the total square footage of all fire stations by the number of
annual fire/other and EMS incidents). The total incidents from stations (
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-15
Exhibit 3-4) is less than the total incidents from apparatus (Exhibit 3-3) because more than one apparatus
responds to many calls, but often one station is the source of all the apparatus responding to a call.
As noted earlier in
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-16
Exhibit 3-2, there is excess station capacity systemwide due to the available beds for emergency
responders. The percentage of capacity in use is used to calculate station square feet in use per incident.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-17
Exhibit 3-4. Renton RFA Building Inventory and Building Square Feet per Incident
Station Name* Building
Square
Feet
Annual
Incidents
Total Building
Square Feet
per Incident
Percentage of
Station
Capacity in
Use**
Station
Square Feet
in Use Per
Incident
Fire Station 11 16,595
Fire Station 12 (Inc. EOC) 17,011
Fire Station 13 20,487
Fire Station 13 Shop 3,596
Fire Station 14 13,659
Fire Station 14 Tower 3,658
Fire Station 16 8,685
Fire Station 17 6,883
Total 90,574 14,945 6.06 66% 3.99
* Stations 11 and 12 are owned by City of Renton and leased to RRFA. Station is owned by Fire District 40 and operated by
RRFA. All stations
** See
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-18
Exhibit 3-2 for calculation of systemwide station capacity in use.
Formula F-2: Annual Cost Per Apparatus
Formulas F-2 through F-4 are needed to calculate the apparatus cost per fire/other incident. The first
step in this calculation is to identify and annualize the cost of each type of apparatus using formula F-2.
The capital cost per apparatus is based on the cost of primary response apparatus and major support
equipment. The annualized capital cost per apparatus is determined by dividing the capital cost of each
type of apparatus by its useful life:
Formula F-2: Fire Apparatus
Cost ÷ Useful Life = Annual Cost Per
Apparatus
There are two variables that require explanation: (D) fire apparatus cost, and (E) useful life.
Variable (D): Fire Apparatus Cost
Exhibit 3-5 shows the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in Exhibit 3-3. The cost
per apparatus includes the vehicle, fire and EMS equipment, and communication equipment. The
apparatus and equipment costs in Exhibit 3-5 represent current costs to purchase a new fully equipped
apparatus.
Variable (E): Useful Life
Exhibit 3-5 also shows the number of years of useful life of each type of apparatus. The annualized cost
is calculated by dividing each apparatus cost by the useful life of that apparatus. Note that the inventory
of engines and ladder trucks includes a mix of front-line and reservice/callback apparatus. RRFA expects
front-line engines and ladder vehicles to have an eight-year useful lifespan as a front-line responder and
an addition eight years as a reserve or call-back vehicle. The average useful lifespans for these types
are therefore weighted to reflect the proportion of vehicles in the current fleet that are front-line versus
reserve or call back.
Exhibit 3-5. Annualized Apparatus Cost
Apparatus Type Cost per
Apparatus
Average Useful
Lifespan*
Annualized Cost
of Apparatus
Engine $886,193 11.64 $76,157.21
Ladder $1,463,812 10.50 $139,410.68
Aid Vehicle $393,629 12.00 $32,802.42
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $648,251 20.00 $32,412.55
Brush Truck $150,000 20.00 $7,500.00
Inspector Vehicles $26,240 10.00 $2,624.02
Battalion Chief Vehicles $67,170 10.00 $6,717.00
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-19
Dive Apparatus $115,333 10.00 $11,533.33
Staff Vehicles $34,940 10.00 $3,494.05
Other Apparatus/Equipment $26,375 10.00 $2,637.50
* RRFA expects front-line engines and ladder vehicles to have an eight-year useful lifespan as a front-line responder and an
addition eight years as a reserve or call-back vehicle. The average useful lifespans for these types are therefore weighted to
reflect the proportion of vehicles in the fleet that are front-line vs reserve or call back.
Formula F-3: Cost Per Apparatus Per fire/otheror EMS Incident
The second step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire/other incident is formula F-3. The capital cost
per fire/other or EMS incident is calculated for each apparatus by dividing the annualized cost per
apparatus by the total annual incidents (both fire/other and EMS) each type of apparatus responds to.
Each type of apparatus is analyzed separately because the number and type of apparatus responding
to an incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
Formula F-3: Annual Cost
Per Apparatus ÷
Annual
Responses Per
Apparatus
=
Annual
Apparatus Cost
Per Response
There are no new variables used in formula F-3. Both variables were developed in previous formulas.
In Exhibit 3-6 the cost per EMS response is calculated for each type of apparatus. Exhibit 3-6 shows the
annualized cost of one of each type of apparatus (from Exhibit 3-5) and the average annual EMS
responses for each type of apparatus (from Exhibit 3-3). Each apparatus cost per response is calculated
by dividing the annualized cost of that type of apparatus by the total number of annual responses for
the same type of apparatus.
Exhibit 3-6. Apparatus Costs per Response
Apparatus Type Annualized Cost of
Apparatus
Average Annual
Responses Per
Apparatus
Apparatus Cost
Per Response
Engine $76,157.21 957 $79.57
Ladder $139,410.68 937 $148.78
Aid Vehicle $32,802.42 1,151 $28.49
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $32,412.55 152 $213.24
Brush Truck $7,500.00 16 $468.75
Inspector Vehicles $2,624.02 48 $54.67
Battalion Chief Vehicles $6,717.00 382 $17.57
Dive Apparatus $11,533.33 11 $1,017.65
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-20
Staff Vehicles $3,494.05 - -
Other Apparatus/Equipment $2,637.50 - -
Formula F-4: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire/Other Incidents
The third step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire/other incident is Formula F-4. The total apparatus
cost per fire/other incident is calculated by multiplying the apparatus cost per response by the percent of
fire/other incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for the fact that
multiple apparatuses are dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are only dispatched to
specific types of incidents. The result of this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per
fire/other incident.
Formula F-4: Annual Cost
Per Response x
Apparatus Percent
of all Fire/Other
Responses
= Apparatus Cost
Per Fire Incident
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (F) apparatus percent of fire/other responses.
Variable (F): Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire/other incident is to identify the annual number of
incidents that Renton’s Fire Department responds to. Emergency incidents are separated into two
categories: Fire/Other and EMS. Exhibit 3-7 lists the annual number of fire/other and EMS incidents
responded to during 2015.
Exhibit 3-7. Annual Fire/Other and EMS Incidents
Incident Type Annual Incidents in 2015
Fire & Other 3,669
EMS 11,276
Total 14,945
Different types of fire/other emergencies need different types or combinations of apparatus. As a result,
the usage of apparatus varies among the types of apparatus. This variance is an important factor in
determining the cost per incident. The percent of fire/other responses by each type of apparatus is
calculated in Exhibit 3-8 by dividing the annual fire/other responses for each type of apparatus by the
total annual fire/other incidents from Exhibit 3-7. The result of the calculation in Exhibit 3-8 is the percent
of fire/other incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For example, engines provided 3,776
responses to the 3,669 fire/other incidents, equaling 102.9% of all fire/other incidents. Another way to
understand this data is that one average fire/other incident involved 1.029 engines, therefore the cost of
responding to a fire/other incident includes 102.9% of the cost of an engine. Other types of apparatus
typically respond to only some of the incidents. Ladder trucks, for example, respond to 22.7% of
fire/other emergency incidents, therefore the cost to respond to the average fire/other incident includes
22.7% of a ladder truck.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-21
Exhibit 3-8. Fire/Other Responses per Incident by Apparatus Type
Apparatus Type Annual Fire/Other-
Related Responses for
Apparatus
Annual Fire/Other-
Related Incidents
Apparatus Response
per Fire/Other Incident
Engine 3,776
1.029
Ladder 834
0.227
Aid Vehicle 1,021
0.278
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 137
0.037
Brush Truck 16
0.004
Inspector Vehicles 190
0.052
Battalion Chief Vehicles 556
0.152
Dive Apparatus 13
0.004
Total 6,543 3,669
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire/other incident is shown in Exhibit 3-9
Exhibit 3-9. The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Exhibit 3-6) is multiplied by the
percent of fire/other incidents dispatched to (from Exhibit 3-7) resulting in the total apparatus cost per
fire/other incident. The “bottom line” in Exhibit 3-9 is the apparatus cost per fire/other incident of
$142.75. In other words, every fire/other incident “uses up” $142.75 worth of apparatus.
Exhibit 3-9. Apparatus Cost per Fire/Other Incident
Apparatus Type Apparatus Cost
Per Response
Apparatus Response per
Fire/Other Incident
Apparatus Cost per
Fire/Other Incident
Engine $79.57 1.029 $81.89
Ladder $148.78 0.227 $33.82
Aid Vehicle $28.49 0.278 $7.93
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $213.24 0.037 $7.96
Brush Truck $468.75 0.004 $2.04
Inspector Vehicles $54.67 0.052 $2.83
Battalion Chief Vehicles $17.57 0.152 $2.66
Dive Apparatus $1,017.65 0.004 $3.61
Total $142.75
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-22
The RRFA dispatch system does not track usage of staff vehicles and other equipment/apparatus.
However, these apparatuses are also essential RRFA emergency response operations. To account for the
cost of these apparatus in this rate study, Exhibit 3-10 divides the total apparatus cost by the useful
lifespan and divides these annualized costs by the total annual incidents to calculate the total cost per
incident.
Exhibit 3-10. Staff Vehicle and Other Equipment/Apparatus Cost per Incident
Apparatus Type Total Cost of All
Apparatus
Useful
Lifespan
(years)
Annualized
Cost of
Apparatus
Annual
Incidents
Cost per
Incident
Staff Vehicle $489,167 10.00 $48,916.70 $3.27
Other
Equipment/Apparatus
$211,000 10.00 $21,100.00 $1.41
Total
14,945
Formula F-5: Annual Station Cost
The annual station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its useful life.
Formula F-5: Station Cost Per
Square Foot ÷ Useful Life = Annual Station Cost
Per Square Foot
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (G) station cost per square foot.
Variable (G): Station Cost per Square Foot
Exhibit 3-11 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per building square foot. The cost per
square foot is divided into three parts. Land cost per building square foot is based on the average land
cost per building square foot of all stations in the current RRFA inventory. Building, furnishings, and
equipment are based on the average of four recently built or permitted fire stations in the Puget Sound
region.5 Finally, the cost of borrowing is based on the most recently constructed station by City of Renton
(Station 12, built in 2003).
The useful life represents the length of time the station is expected to last before it needs to be replaced.
The annualized cost is calculated by dividing the estimated cost per square foot by the average useful
life. The “bottom line” of Exhibit 3-11 is an annualized station cost of $11.78 per square foot.
5 These stations are Central Pierce Station #63 in Midland, Central Pierce Station #72 in Puyallup, Shoreline Station #63, and
Kirkland Station #25. These stations average $480 per sq. ft. in site preparation and “hard” building costs. An addition 48%
is added for soft costs such as sales tax, design, permitting, and furnishings. The total cost per building sq. ft. is $710.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-23
Exhibit 3-11. Annualized Station Cost per Square Foot
Type of Cost Cost per Building
Square Foot
Building Useful Life
(years)
Annual Station Cost
per Square Foot
Land $86.60
Building, Furnishings, & Equipment $710.00
Cost of Borrowing $109.54
Total $906.23 50 $18.12
Source: TCA, 2017; BERK, 2017; Henderson, Young & Company, 2011
Formula F-6: Station Cost Per Fire and EMS Incident
The station cost per fire/other and EMS incident is calculated by multiplying the annual station cost per
square foot by the station square feet per fire and EMS incident.
Formula F-6:
Annual Station
Cost per Square
Foot
x
Station Square
Feet Per Fire and
EMS Incident
=
Annual Station Cost
Per Fire/Other and
EMS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-6. Both variables were developed in previous formulas.
This calculation is shown in Exhibit 3-13. The station cost per square foot (from Exhibit 3-11) is multiplied
by the station square feet per incident (from
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-24
Exhibit 3-4). The result is the station cost of $ 72.40 per fire/other and EMS incident. In other words, each
fire/other and EMS incident “uses up” $72.40 worth of fire station.
Exhibit 3-12. Station Cost per Incident
Annual Station Cost per
Square Foot
Square Feet per
Incident
Annualized Station
Cost per Incident
$18.12 3.99 $72.40
Formula F-7: Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire/other incident rate per unit of development (i.e., dwelling unit or square foot of non-
residential development) is calculated by dividing the total annual fire/other incidents to each type of
land use by the number of dwelling units or square feet of non-residential development for that type of
land use.
Formula F-7:
Annual Fire/Other
Incidents at Each
Type of Land Use
÷
Number of Dwelling
Units or Square
Feet of Each Type
of Land Use
=
Annual Fire/Other
Incidents Per Unit of
Development
There are two variables that require explanation: (H) annual emergency fire/other incidents at land use
types, and (I) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variable (H): Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Land Use Types
The emergency incident data comes from the RRFA’s dispatch records. RRFA codes each individual
incident by property type. For the purpose of developing impact fees, this study combines property types
into 13 broad land use categories.6
As shown in Exhibit 3-13, RRFA responded to 3,669 fire/other incidents during 2015. Of these incidents,
2,413 were coded to a specific property type related to one of the 13 land use categories (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific property address, such as a residence or business). 645 incidents occurred
in roads and streets (in most cases these are traffic-related). The records for the remaining 611 were not
coded to one of the 13 land use categories or roadways. These include incidents with no code at all or
those at other kinds of properties such as vacant land or construction sites. To account for all incidents,
these 611 incidents were allocated proportionally to properties or roads and streets.
6 RRFA dispatch data includes property codes for 1-2 unit residences and multi-family residences. For simplicity, this rate study
labels each category “single-family” and “multi-family”. However, development data for each of these categories in Exhibit
3-15 reflects the RRFA property codes. In other words, unit counts for the “single-family” land use type is inclusive of both
single-family homes and duplexes. “Multi-family” is inclusive of all structures with more than 2 units. Additionally, mobile homes
are included in the “multi-family” land use type consistently.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-25
Exhibit 3-13. Fire/Other Incidents by Location
Incident Location Fire/Other
Incidents
Identifiable
by Location
Percent of
Identifiable
Fire/Other
Incidents
Fire/Other
Incidents Not
Identifiable by
Property Type
Unidentifiable
Fire/Other
Incidents
Allocated to
Location
Total
Fire/Other
Incidents
At Properties 2,413 78.91%
482 2,895
In Roads and Streets 645 21.09%
129 774
Total 3,058
611
3,669
The next four exhibits present the allocation of fire/other incidents among the 13 land use categories:
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-26
Exhibit 3-14 shows the fire/other incidents that were identifiable by land use type, Exhibit 3-15 shows
the fire/other incidents that were in roads and streets. Exhibit 3-16 summarizes the results of the analysis
of fire/other incidents. The total annual fire/other incidents are a combination of the fire/other incidents
allocated among direct responses to land use types (from
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-27
Exhibit 3-14) and the allocation of incidents at roads and streets based on trip generation rates (from
Exhibit 3-15). Exhibit 3-16 combines the fire/other incident data (those land use and traffic), and Exhibit
3-17 shows the fire/other incident rate per unit of development.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-28
Exhibit 3-14 shows the distribution of the 2,413 fire/other incidents that are traceable to a land use
along with the percent distribution of these 2,413 incidents. In the final column, the total 2,895 fire/other
incidents (2,413 traceable + 482 allocated) are allocated among the land use types using the percent
distribution column. The result is the total annual fire/other incidents at each of the land use types.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-29
Exhibit 3-14. Fire/Other Incidents at Specific Land Uses
Land Use Type Annual Fire/Other
Incidents
Identifiable to
Land Use
Percent of All
Property Fire/Other
Incidents Identifiable
to Land Use
Allocate Total Property
Related Fire/Other
Incidents (2,895) to
Land Uses
Single-Family Residential 930 38.54% 1,116
Multi-Family Residential 682 28.26% 818
Hotel/Motel/Resort 34 1.41% 41
Medical Care Facility 50 2.07% 60
Office 63 2.61% 76
Medical/Dental Office 24 0.99% 29
Retail 223 9.24% 268
Leisure Facilities 61 2.53% 73
Restaurant/Lounge 68 2.82% 82
Industrial/Manufacturing 77 3.19% 92
Church/Non-Profit 26 1.08% 31
Education 117 4.85% 140
Special Public Facilities 58 2.40% 70
Total 2,413
2,895
Variable (I): Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet
Exhibit 3-15 shows total units of development by land use category for the year 2015. Data on dwelling
unit counts comes from Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), and the data showing
square feet of non-residential development is from King County’s assessor records. These data reflect
conditions in 2015 within the entire RRFA service area, including City of Renton, Fire Districts 25, and Fire
District 40. These data on units of development were aggregated into the same 13 land use categories
used to summary incidents by property type.
The fire/other incidents in roads and streets are allocated to land use types based on the amount of
traffic generated by each type of land use. In Exhibit 3-15, the number of dwelling units and square feet
of non-residential construction in the RRFA service area is multiplied by the number of daily trips that are
generated by each land use type as reported in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). The result is the total trips associated with each land use type. The percent
of trips associated with each land use type is calculated from the total of all trips.
In the final calculation of Exhibit 3-15, the total 774 annual fire/other incidents in roads and streets (645
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-30
traceable + 129 allocated) are assigned to land use types using the percent of trips generated.
Exhibit 3-15. Fire/Other Incidents in Roads and Streets - Allocated to Land Uses
Land Use Type Units of
Development7
ITE Trip
Generati
on Rate*
Total
Trips
Percent
of Trips
Generat
ed
Annual
Fire/Other
Incidents in
Roads and
Streets per Unit
of Development
Single-Family Residential 33,530 d.u. 8.46456 283,817 29.93% 232
Multi-Family Residential 18,253 d.u. 6.65000 121,382 12.80% 99
Hotel/Motel/Resort 663,236 sq. ft. 0.00892 5,916 0.62% 5
Medical Care Facility 953,037 sq. ft. 0.01650 15,725 1.66% 13
Office 6,339,911 sq. ft. 0.01102 69,866 7.37% 57
Medical/Dental Office 741,366 sq. ft. 0.01102 8,170 0.86% 7
Retail 5,524,021 sq. ft. 0.04294 237,201 25.01% 194
Leisure Facilities 617,870 sq. ft. 0.03082 19,043 2.01% 16
Restaurant/Lounge 281,640 sq. ft. 0.12716 35,813 3.78% 29
Industrial/Manufacturing 13,762,122 sq. ft. 0.00698 96,060 10.13% 78
Church/Non-Profit 811,257 sq. ft. 0.00912 7,399 0.78% 6
Education 2,902,948 sq. ft. 0.01290 37,448 3.95% 31
Special Public Facilities 376,429 sq. ft. 0.02792 10,510 1.11% 9
Total
948,350
774
* Daily trip generation rates are from the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Exhibit 3-16 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire/other incidents. The total annual fire/other
incidents are a combination of the fire/other incidents allocated among direct responses to land use types
(from
7 Non-residential units of development exclude structured parking. Single-family units include duplexes (see footnote 6 for
explanation). Multi-family residential includes units in all structures larger with more than two units plus mobile homes.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-31
Exhibit 3-14) and the allocation of incidents at roads and streets based on trip generation rates (from
Exhibit 3-15).
Exhibit 3-16 Total Fire/Other Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Types Annual Fire/Other
Incidents Direct to
Land Use
Annual Fire/Other Incidents
in Roads and Streets
Allocated to Land Use
Total Annual
Fire/Other Incidents
by Land Use
Single-Family Residential 1,116 232 1,347
Multi-Family Residential 818 99 917
Hotel/Motel/Resort 41 5 46
Medical Care Facility 60 13 73
Office 76 57 133
Medical/Dental Office 29 7 35
Retail 268 194 461
Leisure Facilities 73 16 89
Restaurant/Lounge 82 29 111
Industrial/Manufacturing 92 78 171
Church/Non-Profit 31 6 37
Education 140 31 171
Special Public Facilities 70 9 78
Total 2,895 774 3,669
The final step in determining the annual fire/other incident rate per unit of development is shown in
Exhibit 3-17. The total annual fire/other incidents for each type of land use (from Exhibit 3-16) are
divided by the number of dwelling units or square feet of structures to calculate the annual incident rate
per dwelling unit or square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine traffic-
related incidents (see Exhibit 3-15).
The results in Exhibit 3-17 show how many times an average unit of development has a fire/other
incident to which the City of Renton responds. For example, a single-family residence has an average of
0.0401854 fire/other incidents per year. This is the same as saying that about 4% of single-family
homes have a fire/other incident in a year. Another way of understanding this information is that an
average single-family home would have a fire/other incident once every 25 years.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-32
Exhibit 3-17. Annual Fire/Other Incident Rate by Land Use
Land Use Type Total Annual Fire/Other
Incidents Attributed to
Land Use
Units of
Development
Annual Fire/Other
Incidents Per Unit of
Development
Single-Family Residential 1,347 33,530 d.u. 0.0401854
Multi-Family Residential 917 18,253 d.u. 0.0502557
Hotel/Motel/Resort 46 663,236 sq. ft. 0.0000688
Medical Care Facility 73 953,037 sq. ft. 0.0000764
Office 133 6,339,911 sq. ft. 0.0000209
Medical/Dental Office 35 741,366 sq. ft. 0.0000478
Retail 461 5,524,021 sq. ft. 0.0000835
Leisure Facilities 89 617,870 sq. ft. 0.0001436
Restaurant/Lounge 111 281,640 sq. ft. 0.0003934
Industrial/Manufacturing 171 13,762,122 sq. ft. 0.0000124
Church/Non-Profit 37 811,257 sq. ft. 0.0000459
Education 171 2,902,948 sq. ft. 0.0000589
Special Public Facilities 78 376,429 sq. ft. 0.0002076
Total 3,669
Source: RRFA, 2017; OFM, 2016; King County Assessor, 2015.
Formula F-8: Fire/Other Incident Capital Cost per Unit of Development
The capital cost of fire/other incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the annual
fire/other incidents per unit of development (from Exhibit 3-17) times the annual capital cost per
fire/other incident of each type of apparatus (from Exhibit 3-9) and fire station (from Exhibit 3-12), then
multiplying that result times the useful life of the apparatus or fire station.8
8 Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact fee, rather than the useful
life of the apparatus and stations that provide the fire protection. Both methods meet the legal requirements for impact
fees. The method used in this rate study charges impact fees for the first of each type of apparatus and station needed for
new
development, but subsequent replacements of apparatus and stations are funded by other revenues available to the City of
Renton.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-33
Formula F-8:
Annual Fire/Other
Incidents per Unit of
Development
x
Annual Cost
Per Fire
Incident
x
Useful Life of
Apparatus or
Station
=
Fire Incident
Capital Cost per
Unit of
Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-8. All three variables were developed in previous formulas.
In Exhibit 3-18 through Exhibit 3-30, each fire/other incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the
annual capital cost per fire/other incident. The result is then multiplied by the useful life of the apparatus
or station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
For example, single-family residential units average 0.0401854 fire/other incidents per year (i.e., 4% of
a fire/other incident per year). In Exhibit 3-18, multiplying this incident rate times the annual capital cost
of an engine ($81.89 from Exhibit 3-9) per incident indicates a cost of about $3.29 per single-family
dwelling unit to provide it with fire engines for one year. Since the weighted useful life of an engine is
11.6 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 11.6 times the annual rate, for a total of about
$38.29 per year.
Exhibit 3-18. Engine Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incidents Per
Unit of
Development
Engine Cost at $81.89
per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Engine Life Cost
per Unit of
Development
Based on 11.6-
Year useful life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $3.2909 $38.2938
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $4.1155 $47.8900
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0056 $0.0655
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0063 $0.0728
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0017 $0.0199
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0039 $0.0456
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0068 $0.0795
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0118 $0.1368
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0322 $0.3749
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0010 $0.0118
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0038 $0.0437
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0048 $0.0561
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0170 $0.1979
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-34
Exhibit 3-19 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a ladder truck response to fire/other
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the ladder’s capital cost per fire/other
incident ($33.82 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the ladder truck’s weighted useful life
of 10.5 years to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Exhibit 3-19. Ladder Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Per
Unit of
Development
Ladder Cost at $33.82
per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Ladder Life Cost
per Unit of
Development
Based on 10.5-
Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $1.3591 $14.2703
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $1.6997 $17.8463
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0023 $0.0244
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0026 $0.0271
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0007 $0.0074
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0016 $0.0170
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0028 $0.0296
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0049 $0.0510
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0133 $0.1397
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0004 $0.0044
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0016 $0.0163
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0020 $0.0209
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0070 $0.0737
Exhibit 3-20 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles responses to fire/other
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the aid vehicle cost per fire/other incident
($7.93 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 12.6-year weighted average useful life of
an aid vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-35
Exhibit 3-20. Aid Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Aid Vehicle Cost at
$7.93 per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Aid Vehicle Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
12.6-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.3186 $3.8233
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.3984 $4.7813
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0005 $0.0065
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0006 $0.0073
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0002 $0.0020
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0004 $0.0046
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0007 $0.0079
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0011 $0.0137
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0031 $0.0374
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0001 $0.0012
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0004 $0.0044
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0005 $0.0056
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0016 $0.0198
Exhibit 3-21 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for hazardous material vehicle responses
to fire/other incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the hazardous materials
vehicle cost per fire/other incident ($7.96 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 30-year
useful life of a hazardous materials vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for
hazardous materials vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-36
Exhibit 3-21. Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Hazardous Materials
Vehicle Cost at $7.96
per Fire/Other Incident,
per Unit of
Development
Hazardous
Materials Vehicle
Life Cost per Unit
of Development
at 30-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.3200 $6.3994
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.4002 $8.0031
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0005 $0.0110
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0006 $0.0122
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0002 $0.0033
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0004 $0.0076
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0007 $0.0133
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0011 $0.0229
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0031 $0.0627
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0001 $0.0020
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0004 $0.0073
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0005 $0.0094
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0017 $0.0331
Exhibit 3-22 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for brush truck responses to fire/other
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the brush truck cost per fire/other incident
($2.04 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 20-year useful life of a brush truck to
calculate the capital cost per unit of development for brush trucks.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-37
Exhibit 3-22. Brush Truck Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Brush Truck Cost at
$2.04 per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Brush Truck Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
20-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.0821 $1.6429
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.1027 $2.0546
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0001 $0.0028
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0002 $0.0031
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0000 $0.0009
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0001 $0.0020
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0002 $0.0034
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0003 $0.0059
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0008 $0.0161
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0005
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0001 $0.0019
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0001 $0.0024
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0004 $0.0085
Exhibit 3-23 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for inspector vehicle responses to
fire/other incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the inspector vehicle cost per
fire/other incident ($2.83 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year useful life of an
inspector vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for inspector vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-38
Exhibit 3-23. Inspector Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Inspector Vehicle Cost
at $2.83 per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Inspector Vehicle
Life Cost per Unit
of Development
at 10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.1138 $1.1376
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.1423 $1.4227
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0002 $0.0019
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0002 $0.0022
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0001 $0.0006
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0001 $0.0014
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0002 $0.0024
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0004 $0.0041
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0011 $0.0111
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0004
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0001 $0.0013
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0002 $0.0017
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0006 $0.0059
Exhibit 3-24 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for battalion chief vehicle responses to
fire/other incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the battalion chief vehicle cost
per fire/other incident ($2.66 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year useful life of
a battalion chief vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for battalion chief vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-39
Exhibit 3-24. Battalion Chief Vehicle Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Battalion Chief Vehicle
Cost at $2.66 per
Fire/Other Incident, per
Unit of Development
Battalion Chief
Vehicle Life Cost
per Unit of
Development at
10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.1070 $1.0699
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.1338 $1.3380
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0002 $0.0018
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0002 $0.0020
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0001 $0.0006
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0001 $0.0013
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0002 $0.0022
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0004 $0.0038
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0010 $0.0105
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0003
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0001 $0.0012
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0002 $0.0016
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0006 $0.0055
Exhibit 3-25 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for dive apparatus responses to
fire/other incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the dive apparatus cost per
fire/other incident ($3.61 from Exhibit 3-9). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year useful life of a
dive apparatus to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for dive apparatus.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-40
Exhibit 3-25. Dive Apparatus Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Dive Apparatus Cost at
$3.61 per Fire/Other
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Dive Apparatus
Life Cost per Unit
of Development
at 10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.1449 $1.4490
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.1812 $1.8121
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0002 $0.0025
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0003 $0.0028
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0001 $0.0008
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0002 $0.0017
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0003 $0.0030
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0005 $0.0052
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0014 $0.0142
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0004
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0002 $0.0017
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0002 $0.0021
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0007 $0.0075
Exhibit 3-26 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicle for fire/other incidents.
The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the staff vehicle cost per fire/other incident ($3.27
from Exhibit 3-10). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle s to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-41
Exhibit 3-26. Staff Vehicle Cost per Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Staff Vehicle Cost at
$3.27 per Incident, per
Unit of Development
Staff Vehicle Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.1315 $1.3153
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.0502557 $0.1645 $1.6449
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0002 $0.0023
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0003 $0.0025
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0001 $0.0007
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0002 $0.0016
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0003 $0.0027
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0005 $0.0047
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0013 $0.0129
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0004
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0002 $0.0015
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0002 $0.0019
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0007 $0.0068
Exhibit 3-27 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other apparatus/equipment to
fire/other incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment
cost per fire/other incident ($1.41 from Exhibit 3-10). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year useful
life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-42
Exhibit 3-27. Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Other
Apparatus/Equip.
Cost at $1.41 per
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Other
Apparatus/Equip.
Life Cost per Unit
of Development at
10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $0.0567 $0.5674
Multi-family d.u. 0.0502557 $0.0710 $0.7095
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0001 $0.0010
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0001 $0.0011
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0000 $0.0003
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0001 $0.0007
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0001 $0.0012
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0002 $0.0020
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0006 $0.0056
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0000 $0.0002
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0001 $0.0006
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0001 $0.0008
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0003 $0.0029
Exhibit 3-28 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that house apparatus. The
fire/other incident rate (from Exhibit 3-17) is multiplied by the fire station cost per fire/other incident
($72.40 from Exhibit 3-28). The result is then multiplied by the 50-year useful life of fire stations to
calculate the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-43
Exhibit 3-28. Fire Station Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual
Fire/Other
Incident Rate
Fire Station Cost at
$72.40 per Incident,
per Unit of
Development
Fire Station Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
50-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.0401854 $2.9093 $145.46
Multi-family d.u. 0.0502557 $3.6383 $181.92
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0000688 $0.0050 $0.25
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0000764 $0.0055 $0.28
Office sq. ft. 0.0000209 $0.0015 $0.08
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0000478 $0.0035 $0.17
Retail sq. ft. 0.0000835 $0.0060 $0.30
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0001436 $0.0104 $0.52
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0003934 $0.0285 $1.42
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000124 $0.0009 $0.04
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000459 $0.0033 $0.17
Education sq. ft. 0.0000589 $0.0043 $0.21
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0002076 $0.0150 $0.75
Exhibit 3-29 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from Exhibit 3-18 through
Exhibit 3-28) to show the total capital cost of responses to fire/other incidents for one single-family unit.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-44
Exhibit 3-29. Example of Calculation of Total Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents for a Single-Family
Residential Dwelling Unit
Cost Component Cost
Engine $38.29
Ladder $14.27
Aid Vehicle $3.82
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $6.40
Brush Truck $1.64
Inspector Vehicle $1.14
Battalion Chief Vehicle $1.07
Dive Apparatus $1.45
Staff Vehicle $1.32
Other Apparatus $0.57
Fire Station $145.46
Total $215.43
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all types of apparatus and
station in Exhibit 3-30.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-45
Exhibit 3-30. Total Capital Cost of Response to Fire/Other Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Fire/Other Incidents: Life
Cost of All Apparatus &
Stations per Unit of
Development
Single-Family Residential d.u. $215.43
Multi-Family Residential d.u. $269.42
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. $0.37
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. $0.41
Office sq. ft. $0.11
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. $0.26
Retail sq. ft. $0.45
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. $0.77
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. $2.11
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. $0.07
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. $0.25
Education sq. ft. $0.32
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. $1.11
Formula F-9: Apparatus cost Per ems incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per EMS incident is similar to the calculation of costs per fire/other
incident in Exhibit 3-9. The total apparatus cost per EMS incident is calculated by multiplying the cost per
apparatus per response by the percent of EMS incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This
calculation accounts for the fact that multiple apparatuses are dispatched to many incidents, and that
some apparatus are only dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of this calculation is a
weighted average total cost of apparatus per EMS incident.
Formula F-9: Apparatus Cost Per
Response x Apparatus Percent
of EMS Responses = Apparatus Cost Per
EMS Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-9. The first variable is identical to the data from Exhibit
3-6, and the second variable concerning the percent of EMS responses works identically to Variable F,
but using EMS responses instead of fire/other responses.
Different types of EMS incidents need different types or combinations of apparatus. As a result, the
usage of apparatus varies among the types of apparatus. This variance is an important factor in
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-46
determining the cost per incident. The percent of EMS responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Exhibit 3-31 by dividing the annual EMS responses for each type of apparatus by the total annual
EMS incidents from Exhibit 3-7. The result of the calculation in Exhibit 3-31 is the percent of EMS incidents
responded to by each type of apparatus. For example, engines provided 6,752 responses to the 14,308
EMS incidents, equaling 59.9% of all EMS incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average EMS incident involved 0.599 engines therefore the cost of responding to an EMS incident
includes 59.9% of the cost of an engine.
Exhibit 3-31. EMS Response per Incident Rate by Apparatus Type
Apparatus Type Annual EMS-Related
Responses for
Apparatus
Annual EMS-
Related Incidents
Apparatus Response
per EMS Incident Rate
Engine 6,752
0.599
Ladder 1,040
0.092
Aid Vehicle 5,887
0.522
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 15
0.001
Brush Truck 0
0.000
Inspector Vehicles 2
0.000
Battalion Chief Vehicles 591
0.052
Dive Apparatus 21
0.002
Total 14,308 11,276
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per EMS incident is shown in Exhibit 3-32. The cost per
response for each type of apparatus (from Exhibit 3-6) is multiplied by the percent of EMS incidents
dispatched to (from Exhibit 3-31) resulting in the total apparatus cost per EMS incident. The “bottom line”
in Exhibit 3-32is the apparatus cost per EMS incident of $79.35. In other words, every EMS incident “uses
up” $79.35 worth of apparatus.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-47
Exhibit 3-32. Apparatus Cost per EMS Incident
Apparatus Type Apparatus Cost
Per Response
Apparatus Response per
EMS Incident Rate
Apparatus Cost per
EMS Incident
Engine $79.57 0.599 $47.65
Ladder $148.78 0.092 $13.72
Aid Vehicle $28.49 0.522 $14.87
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $213.24 0.001 $0.28
Brush Truck $468.75 0.000 $0.00
Inspector Vehicles $54.67 0.000 $0.01
Battalion Chief $17.57 0.052 $0.92
Dive Apparatus $1,017.65 0.002 $1.90
Total $79.35
The station cost per EMS incident is the same as Exhibit 3-12. The formula is the same as Formula F-6.
Formula F-10: Annual EMS Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
Formula F-10 is the same as Formula F-7. The annual EMS incident rate per unit of development is
calculated using the same methodology as described for fire/other incidents in Exhibit 3-13 through Exhibit
3-17. There are no new variables used in formula F-10. The variables are identical to those used in
Formula F-7, but using EMS incidents instead of fire/other incidents.
As shown in Exhibit 3-33, RRFA responded to 11,276 EMS incidents during 2015. Of these incidents,
11,164 were coded to a specific property type related to one of the 13 land use categories used in this
study. 1,849 incidents occurred in roads and streets (in most cases these are traffic-related). The records
for the remaining 112 were not coded to one of the 13 land use categories or roadways. These include
incidents with no code at all or those at other kinds of properties such as vacant land or construction sites.
To account for all incidents, these 112 incidents were allocated proportionally to Properties or Roads and
Streets.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-48
Exhibit 3-33. EMS Incidents by Location
Incident Location EMS
Incidents
Identifiable
by Location
Percent of
Identifiable
EMS Incidents
EMS Incidents
Not
Identifiable by
Location
Unidentifiable
EMS Incidents
Allocated to
Location
Total EMS
Incidents
At Properties 9,315 83.44%
93 9,408
In Roads and Streets 1,849 16.56%
19 1,868
Total 11,164
112
11,276
There are four tables that present the allocation of EMS incidents among types of land use: Exhibit 3-34
shows the EMS incidents that were identifiable by land use type, Exhibit 3-35 shows the EMS incidents
that were in roads and streets. Exhibit 3-36 combines the EMS incident data (at properties and in road
and streets), and Exhibit 3-37 shows the EMS incident rate per unit of development.
Exhibit 3-34 shows the distribution of the 9,315 EMS incidents that are traceable to a land use type
along with the percent distribution of these incidents. In the last column, the total 9,408 EMS incidents
(9,315 traceable to land use type + 112 that are not) are allocated among the land use types using the
percent distribution column. The result is the total annual EMS incidents at each of the land use types.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-49
Exhibit 3-34. EMS Incidents at Specific Land Uses
Land Use Type Annual EMS
Incidents
Identifiable to
Land Use
Percent of All EMS
Incidents Identifiable
to Land Use
Allocate Total
Property Related EMS
Incidents (9,408) to
Land Uses
Single-Family Residential 4,059 43.57% 4,100
Multi-Family Residential 2,607 27.99% 2,633
Hotel/Motel/Resort 125 1.34% 126
Medical Care Facility 715 7.68% 722
Office 74 0.79% 75
Medical/Dental Office 270 2.90% 273
Retail 541 5.81% 546
Leisure Facilities 184 1.98% 186
Restaurant/Lounge 172 1.85% 174
Industrial/Manufacturing 71 0.76% 72
Church/Non-Profit 44 0.47% 44
Education 190 2.04% 192
Special Public Facilities 263 2.82% 266
Total 9,315
9,408
The EMS incidents in roads and streets are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of traffic
generated by each type of land use. In Exhibit 3-35, the number of dwelling units and square feet of
non-residential construction in the service area is multiplied by the number of trips that are generated by
each land use type in the same manner as Exhibit 3-15. The result is the total trips associated with each
land use type. The percent of trips associated with each land use type is calculated from the total of all
trips.
In the final calculation in Exhibit 3-35 the total 1,868 annual EMS incidents that are in roads and streets
(1,849 traceable + 19 allocated) are assigned to the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-50
Exhibit 3-35. EMS Incidents in Roads and Streets - Allocated to Land Uses
Land Use Type Units of
Development 9
ITE Trip
Generation
Rate*
Total Trips Percent of
Trips
Generated
Annual EMS
Incidents in
Roads and
Streets Per Unit
of
Development
Single-Family Residential 33,530 d.u. 8.46456 283,817 29.93% 559
Multi-Family Residential 18,253 d.u. 6.65000 121,382 12.80% 239
Hotel/Motel/Resort 663,236 sq. ft. 0.00892 5,916 0.62% 12
Medical Care Facility 953,037 sq. ft. 0.01650 15,725 1.66% 31
Office 6,339,911 sq. ft. 0.01102 69,866 7.37% 138
Medical/Dental Office 741,366 sq. ft. 0.01102 8,170 0.86% 16
Retail 5,524,021 sq. ft. 0.04294 237,201 25.01% 467
Leisure Facilities 617,870 sq. ft. 0.03082 19,043 2.01% 38
Restaurant/Lounge 281,640 sq. ft. 0.12716 35,813 3.78% 71
Industrial/Manufacturing 13,762,122 sq. ft. 0.00698 96,060 10.13% 189
Church/Non-Profit 811,257 sq. ft. 0.00912 7,399 0.78% 15
Education 2,902,948 sq. ft. 0.01290 37,448 3.95% 74
Special Public Facilities 376,429 sq. ft. 0.02792 10,510 1.11% 21
Total
948,350
1,868
* Daily trip generation rates are from the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Exhibit 3-36 summarizes the results of the analysis of EMS incidents. The total annual EMS incidents is a
combination of the EMS incidents allocated among direct responses to land use types (from Exhibit 3-34)
and the allocation of incidents in roads and streets based on trip generation rates (from Exhibit 3-35).
9 Non-residential units of development exclude structured parking. Single-family units include duplexes (see footnote 6 for
explanation). Multi-family residential includes units in all structures larger with more than two units plus mobile homes.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-51
Exhibit 3-36. Total EMS Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Type Annual Property
Related EMS Incidents
by Land Use
Annual EMS Incidents
in Roads and Streets
Assigned to Land Use
Total Annual EMS
Incidents by Land Use
Single-Family Residential 4,100 559 4,659
Multi-Family Residential 2,633 239 2,872
Hotel/Motel/Resort 126 12 138
Medical Care Facility 722 31 753
Office 75 138 212
Medical/Dental Office 273 16 289
Retail 546 467 1,014
Leisure Facilities 186 38 223
Restaurant/Lounge 174 71 244
Industrial/Manufacturing 72 189 261
Church/Non-Profit 44 15 59
Education 192 74 266
Special Public Facilities 266 21 286
Total 9,408 1,868 11,276
The final step in determining the annual EMS incident rate per unit of development is shown in Exhibit
3-37. The total annual EMS incidents for each type of land use (from Exhibit 3-36) are divided by the
number of dwelling units or square feet of structures to calculate the annual EMS incident rate per
dwelling unit or square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to assign incidents in
roads and streets to land use types (see Exhibit 3-35). The results in Exhibit 3-37 show how many times
an average unit of development has an EMS incident to which the City of Renton responds. For example,
a single-family residential unit has an average of 0.138392 EMS incidents per year. In other words,
about 13.8% of all single-family residential dwellings have an EMS incident each a year. Another way of
understanding this information is that an average residential dwelling unit would have an EMS incident
once every 7.2 years.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-52
Exhibit 3-37. Annual EMS Incident Rate by Land Use
Land Use Type Total Annual EMS
Incidents Attributed
to Land Use
Renton Units of
Development
Annual EMS
Incidents per Unit of
Development
Single-Family Residential 4,659 33,530 d.u. 0.1389392
Multi-Family Residential 2,872 18,253 d.u. 0.1573543
Hotel/Motel/Resort 138 663,236 sq. ft. 0.0002079
Medical Care Facility 753 953,037 sq. ft. 0.0007903
Office 212 6,339,911 sq. ft. 0.0000335
Medical/Dental Office 289 741,366 sq. ft. 0.0003895
Retail 1,014 5,524,021 sq. ft. 0.0001835
Leisure Facilities 223 617,870 sq. ft. 0.0003615
Restaurant/Lounge 244 281,640 sq. ft. 0.0008672
Industrial/Manufacturing 261 13,762,122 sq. ft. 0.0000190
Church/Non-Profit 59 811,257 sq. ft. 0.0000727
Education 266 2,902,948 sq. ft. 0.0000915
Special Public Facilities 286 376,429 sq. ft. 0.0007607
Total 11,276
Formula F-11: EMS Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of EMS incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the annual EMS
incidents per unit of development (from Exhibit 3-37) times the annual capital cost per EMS incident of
each type of apparatus (Exhibit 3-32) and fire station (from Exhibit 3-12), then multiplying that result
times the useful life of the apparatus or fire station.10
Formula F-11:
Annual EMS
Incidents per Unit of
Development
x
Annual Cost
Per EMS
Incident
x
Useful Life of
Apparatus or
Station
=
EMS Incident
Capital Cost per
Unit of
Development
10 Footnote 8 applies to F-11 as well as F-8.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-53
There are no new variables used in formula F-11. The variables are identical to those used in Formula F-
8, but using EMS incident rates and costs instead of fire/other incident rates and costs.
In Exhibit 3-38 through Exhibit 3-47, each EMS incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the
annual capital cost per EMS incident. The result is then multiplied by the useful life of the apparatus or
station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station. This
series of tables does not include the cost for a brush truck because, as shown in Exhibit 3-31, they do not
respond to EMS incidents, therefore the apparatus cost per EMS incident for this vehicle of apparatus is
zero in Exhibit 3-32.
Exhibit 3-38 calculates the EMS related capital costs of an engine per unit of development. For example,
single-family residential units average 0.1389392 EMS incidents per year (i.e., 13.89% of an EMS
incident per year). Multiplying this by the annual capital cost of $47.65 per incident (from Exhibit 3-32)
results in a cost of $6.62 per dwelling unit to provide it with engines for one year. Since the engine lasts
on average 11.6 years on average, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 11.6 times the annual rate,
for a total of $77.0331.
Exhibit 3-38. Engine Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Engine Cost at $47.65
per EMS Incident, per
Unit of Development
Engine Life Cost
per Unit of
Development at
11.6-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $6.6200 $77.0331
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $7.4975 $87.2431
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0099 $0.1153
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0377 $0.4381
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0016 $0.0186
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0186 $0.2160
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0087 $0.1017
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0172 $0.2004
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0413 $0.4808
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0009 $0.0105
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0035 $0.0403
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0044 $0.0507
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0362 $0.4217
Exhibit 3-39 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks responding to EMS
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the ladder truck’s capital cost per EMS
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-54
incident ($13.72 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by the 10.5-year average useful life of
a ladder truck to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Exhibit 3-39. Ladder Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Ladder Cost at
$13.72 per EMS
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Ladder Life Cost
per Unit of
Development at
10.5-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $1.9066 $20.0193
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $2.1593 $22.6727
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0029 $0.0300
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0108 $0.1139
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0005 $0.0048
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0053 $0.0561
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0025 $0.0264
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0050 $0.0521
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0119 $0.1250
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0003 $0.0027
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0010 $0.0105
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0013 $0.0132
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0104 $0.1096
Exhibit 3-40 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles responding to EMS
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the aid vehicles’ capital cost per EMS
incident ($14.87 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by the 12.6-year average useful life of
an aid vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-55
Exhibit 3-40. Aid Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Aid Vehicle Cost at
$14.87 per EMS
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Aid Vehicle Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
12.6-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $2.0667 $24.7999
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $2.3406 $28.0869
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0031 $0.0371
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0118 $0.1411
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0005 $0.0060
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0058 $0.0695
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0027 $0.0327
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0054 $0.0645
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0129 $0.1548
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0003 $0.0034
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0011 $0.0130
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0014 $0.0163
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0113 $0.1358
Exhibit 3-41 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for hazardous materials vehicles
responding to EMS incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the hazardous
materials vehicles’ capital cost per EMS incident ($0.28 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by
the 30-year average useful life of a hazardous materials vehicles to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for hazardous materials vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-56
Exhibit 3-41. Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Hazardous Materials
Vehicle Cost at $0.28
per EMS Incident, per
Unit of Development
Hazardous
Materials Vehicle
Life Cost per Unit
of Development at
30-Year life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.0394 $0.7882
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.0446 $0.8927
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0001 $0.0012
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0002 $0.0045
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0000 $0.0002
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0001 $0.0022
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0001 $0.0010
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0001 $0.0021
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0002 $0.0049
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0000 $0.0001
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0000 $0.0004
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0000 $0.0005
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0002 $0.0043
Exhibit 3-42 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for inspector vehicles responding to EMS
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the inspector vehicles’ capital cost per EMS
incident ($0.01 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year average useful life of an
inspector vehicles to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for inspector vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-57
Exhibit 3-42. Inspector Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Inspector Vehicle Cost
at $0.01 per EMS
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Inspector Vehicle
Life Cost per Unit
of Development
at 10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.0013 $0.0135
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.0015 $0.0153
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0000 $0.0000
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0000 $0.0001
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0000 $0.0000
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0000 $0.0000
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0000 $0.0000
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0000 $0.0000
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0000 $0.0001
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0000 $0.0000
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0000 $0.0000
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0000 $0.0000
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0000 $0.0001
Exhibit 3-43 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for battalion chief vehicles responding to
EMS incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the battalion chief vehicles’ capital
cost per EMS incident ($0.01 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year average
useful life of a battalion chief vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for battalion
chief vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-58
Exhibit 3-43. Battalion Chief Vehicle Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Battalion Chief
Vehicle Cost at $0.92
per EMS Incident, per
Unit of Development
Battalion Chief
Vehicle Life Cost
per Unit of
Development at 10-
Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.1279 $1.2794
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.1449 $1.4489
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0002 $0.0019
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0007 $0.0073
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0000 $0.0003
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0004 $0.0036
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0002 $0.0017
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0003 $0.0033
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0008 $0.0080
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0000 $0.0002
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0001 $0.0007
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0001 $0.0008
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0007 $0.0070
Exhibit 3-44 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for dive apparatus responding to EMS
incidents. The incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the dive apparatus’ capital cost per EMS
incident ($1.90 from Exhibit 3-32). The result is then multiplied by the 10-year average useful life of a
dive apparatus to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for dive apparatus.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-59
Exhibit 3-44. Dive Apparatus Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Dive Apparatus Cost at
$1.90 per EMS Incident,
per Unit of
Development
Dive Apparatus
Life Cost per Unit
of Development
at 10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.2633 $2.6332
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.2982 $2.9822
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0004 $0.0039
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0015 $0.0150
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0001 $0.0006
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0007 $0.0074
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0003 $0.0035
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0007 $0.0069
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0016 $0.0164
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0000 $0.0004
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0001 $0.0014
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0002 $0.0017
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0014 $0.0144
Exhibit 3-45 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles. The incident rate (from
Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the dive apparatus’ capital cost per incident ($3.27 from Exhibit 3-10). The
result is then multiplied by the 10-year average useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the capital cost
per unit of development for staff vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-60
Exhibit 3-45. Staff Vehicle Cost per EMS Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Staff Vehicle Cost at
$3.27 per Incident, per
Unit of Development
Staff Vehicle Life
Cost per Unit of
Development at
10-Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.4548 $4.5476
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.5150 $5.1504
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0007 $0.0068
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0026 $0.0259
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0001 $0.0011
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0013 $0.0128
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0006 $0.0060
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0012 $0.0118
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0028 $0.0284
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0001 $0.0006
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0002 $0.0024
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0003 $0.0030
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0025 $0.0249
Exhibit 3-46 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles. The incident rate (from
Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the dive apparatus’ capital cost per incident ($1.41 from Exhibit 3-10). The
result is then multiplied by the 10-year average useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the capital cost
per unit of development for staff vehicles.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-61
Exhibit 3-46. Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost of Response to EMS Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Other
Apparatus/Equip.
Cost at $1.41 per
Incident, per Unit of
Development
Other
Apparatus/Equip.
Life Cost per Unit of
Development at 10-
Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $0.1962 $1.9616
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $0.2222 $2.2216
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0003 $0.0029
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0011 $0.0112
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0000 $0.0005
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0005 $0.0055
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0003 $0.0026
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0005 $0.0051
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0012 $0.0122
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0000 $0.0003
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0001 $0.0010
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0001 $0.0013
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0011 $0.0107
Exhibit 3-47 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that house EMS
apparatus. The EMS incident rate (from Exhibit 3-37) is multiplied by the fire station’s capital cost per
fire/other and EMS incident ($72.40 from Exhibit 3-12). The result is then multiplied by the 50-year
useful life of a fire station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-62
Exhibit 3-47. Fire Station Cost of Response to EMS Incident, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Annual EMS
Incident Rate
Fire Station Cost at
$72.40 per Incident,
per Unit of
Development
Fire Station Life Cost
per Unit of
Development at 50-
Year Life
Single-Family Residential d.u. 0.1389392 $10.0588 $502.9375
Multi-Family Residential d.u. 0.1573543 $11.3919 $569.5973
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. 0.0002079 $0.0151 $0.7527
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. 0.0007903 $0.0572 $2.8606
Office sq. ft. 0.0000335 $0.0024 $0.1212
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. 0.0003895 $0.0282 $1.4101
Retail sq. ft. 0.0001835 $0.0133 $0.6642
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. 0.0003615 $0.0262 $1.3085
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. 0.0008672 $0.0628 $3.1393
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. 0.0000190 $0.0014 $0.0686
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. 0.0000727 $0.0053 $0.2633
Education sq. ft. 0.0000915 $0.0066 $0.3313
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. 0.0007607 $0.0551 $2.7535
Exhibit 3-48 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from Exhibit 3-38 through
Exhibit 3-47) to show the total capital cost of responses to EMS incidents for one unit of single-family
residential development.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-63
Exhibit 3-48. Example of Calculation of Total Cost of Response to EMS Incidents for a Single-Family
Residential Dwelling Unit
Cost Component Cost
Engine $77.03
Ladder $20.02
Aid Vehicle $24.80
Hazardous Materials Vehicle $0.79
Inspector Vehicle $0.01
Battalion Chief Vehicle $1.28
Dive Apparatus $2.63
Staff Vehicle $4.55
Other Apparatus $1.96
Fire Station $502.94
Total $636.01
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all types of apparatus and
stations in Exhibit 3-49.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-64
Exhibit 3-49. Total Capital Cost of Response to EMS Incidents, per Unit of Development
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
EMS Incidents: Life Cost per Unit of
Development of All Apparatus & Stations
Single-Family Residential d.u. $636.01
Multi-Family Residential d.u. $720.31
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. $0.95
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. $3.62
Office sq. ft. $0.15
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. $1.78
Retail sq. ft. $0.84
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. $1.65
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. $3.97
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. $0.09
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. $0.33
Education sq. ft. $0.42
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. $3.48
Formula F-12: Total Cost Per Unit Of Development
The fire/other and EMS costs per unit of development (from Exhibit 3-16 and Exhibit 3-49) are combined
to determine the total fire/other and EMS cost per dwelling unit or nonresidential square foot.
Formula F-12:
Fire Incident Capital
Cost Per Unit of
Development
x
EMS Incident
Capital Cost Per
Unit of
Development
=
Total Cost of
Response Per Unit
of Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-12. Both variables were developed in previous formulas
and exhibits.
In Exhibit 3-50 the fire/other and EMS costs per unit of development (from Exhibit 3-16 and Exhibit
3-49) are added together to determine the combined total fire/other and EMS cost of response per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-65
Exhibit 3-50. Total Cost of Response to All Incidents by Land Use Category
Land Use Type Unit of
Development
Fire/Other
Incident Life Cost
of All Apparatus
& Station (Impact
Cost of
Fire/Other)
EMS Incident
Life Cost of
All Apparatus
& Station
(Impact Cost
of EMS)
Total Cost of
Response to EMS,
Fire, & Other
Incidents Per Unit
of Development by
Land Use Category
Single-Family Residential d.u. $215.43 $636.01 $851.45
Multi-Family Residential d.u. $269.42 $720.31 $989.73
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq. ft. $0.37 $0.95 $1.32
Medical Care Facility sq. ft. $0.41 $3.62 $4.03
Office sq. ft. $0.11 $0.15 $0.27
Medical/Dental Office sq. ft. $0.26 $1.78 $2.04
Retail sq. ft. $0.45 $0.84 $1.29
Leisure Facilities sq. ft. $0.77 $1.65 $2.42
Restaurant/Lounge sq. ft. $2.11 $3.97 $6.08
Industrial/Manufacturing sq. ft. $0.07 $0.09 $0.15
Church/Non-Profit sq. ft. $0.25 $0.33 $0.58
Education sq. ft. $0.32 $0.42 $0.73
Special Public Facilities sq. ft. $1.11 $3.48 $4.60
CAPITAL PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
As discussed in Section 3.2 above, the City of Renton is expected to grow during the six-year period of
2018 to 2023. This growth, and the new development associated with it, will create increased demands
for fire and emergency response services. This chapter first projects increased apparatus needs and the
proportion of those needs that are related to expected growth within the City of Renton only. This is to
identify the proportion of capital facility costs that can be funded with City of Renton fire impact fee
revenues. Following the summarization of apparatus needs is a summarization of growth-related projects
at stations needed to increase operational capacity for emergency response.
Projected Growth in the RRFA Service Area
Exhibit 3-51 presents estimated population in the RRFA in 2016 as well as net population growth
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-66
projections for the years 2017 through 2023.11 The City of Renton is expected to grow by 6,725
residents. This is 81% of the total population growth forecasted for the RRFA service area.
Exhibit 3-51. RRFA Service Area Population and Projected Growth
Description 2016 Growth 2017-2023
City of Renton Population 101,300 6,725
KCFD 25 Population 7,847 346
KCFD 40 Population 21,131 1,242
Total Service Area Population 130,278 8,312
City of Renton Share of Population Growth 81%
Source: OFM, 2016; PSRC, 2017; BERK, 2017.
2023 Incident Projections
The number of incidents in the service area is expected to grow with population. Exhibit 3-52 compares
population estimates area to total emergency incidents for the years 2013 through 2016. It shows that
the rate of incidents per capita has steadily increased by about 2% annually. This is consistent with
findings in other fire districts as well as the expected outcomes of region-wide demographic trends
whereby the elderly population is growing at a faster rate than the remainder of the population.12 This
study assumes that the average annual rate of growth in incidents per capita will continue. By 2023, the
rate is assumed to be 0.1369.
11 BERK analyzed land use forecast data from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for the City of Renton and
unincorporated areas inclusive of KCFD 25 and KCFD 40 to determine this projection for the six-year planning period. See
https://www.psrc.org/projections-cities-and-other-places
12 Studies indicate that people 65 and older utilize EMS twice as often as younger populations, while those over 85 use it
three times as much. (Snyder & Christmas, 2003)
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-67
Exhibit 3-52. Total Incidents Per Capita, Renton RFA Service Area
Description 2013 2014 2015 2016
City of Renton Population 95,540 97,130 98,470 101,300
KCFD 25 Population 7,481 7,610 7,612 7,847
KCFD 40 Population 20,429 20,808 20,819 21,131
Total Service Area Population 123,450 125,548 126,901 130,278
Total Incidents 13,848 14,339 14,945 15,515
Total Incident per Capita 0.1122 0.1142 0.1178 0.1199
Source: OFM, 2016; Renton RFA, 2017; BERK 2017.
As shown in Exhibit 3-51, the City of Renton is projected to grow by 6,725 between 2017 and 2023.
Exhibit 3-53 shows the projected number of annual incidents associated with this growth in population,
using the projected incidents per capita rate for 2023.
Exhibit 3-53. Projection of Annual Incidents Associated with City of Renton Growth, 2023
Description Value Source
City of Renton Projected
Population Growth,
2017-2023
6,725 BERK Analysis of PSRC Forecast (PSRC, 2017)
Incidents per Capita, 2023 0.1369 BERK projection based on historic trend (2013-
2016)
Annual Incidents Associated
with City of Renton Population
Growth
2,918
BERK Calculation
Projected Growth-Related Apparatus Needs in 2023
In 2015, Renton RFA operated with six front-line engines and three front-line aid vehicles. Exhibit 3-54
presents baseline responses per incident and average annual responses per front-line apparatus. Unlike
the calculations in Chapter 3, these calculations combine both EMS and Fire/Other incidents to determine
response rates per incident. This measure represents the total annual response capacity for each type of
vehicle. For the purpose of projecting service demands in 2023, this analysis assumes the proportion of
incidents by type (fire, EMS, etc.) will not change. This assumption is supported by analysis of incident
data between 2013 and 2016.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-68
Exhibit 3-54. Baseline Front-Line Apparatus Responses per Incident, 2015
Count of
Front-Line
Apparatus
Annual
Responses
Annual
Incidents
Response Rate
per Incident
Annual Responses
per Front-Line
Apparatus
Engine 6 10,528
0.704 1,755
Aid Vehicle 3 6,908
0.462 2,303
Total
14,945
Exhibit 3-55 calculates the number of additional engines and aid vehicles needed to serve new growth
projected in the City of Renton. First it calculated projected growth-related responses by apparatus type
by multiplying the projected growth-related annual incidents from Exhibit 3-53 by the annual response
rate per incident from Exhibit 3-54. Next, these growth-related responses are divided by the annual
responses per front-line apparatus from Exhibit 3-54. It shows that RRFA will need 1.2 new engines and
0.6 new aid vehicles to serve projected growth inside the City of Renton.
Exhibit 3-55. Projected Apparatus Need Associated with City of Renton Growth, 2018 - 2023
Apparatus
Type
Annual Incidents
Associated with
Renton
Population
Growth, 2023
Response
Rate per
Incident
Projected
Growth-
Related
Responses
Annual
Responses
per Front-
Line
Apparatus
Additional Front-
Line Apparatus
Needed to Serve
Renton Growth,
2023
Engine 0.704 2,056 1,755 1.2
Aid Vehicle 0.462 1,349 2,303 0.6
Total 2,918
Exhibit 3-56 shows the planned engine and aid vehicle additions to fleet to address anticipated needs in
the entire RRFA service area. It also calculates the percentage of these total planned additions to fleet
that are associated with City of Renton growth-related needs.
Exhibit 3-56. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Associated with Planned Additions to RRFA Fleet
Apparatus
Type
Total
Planned
Additions
to Fleet,
2017-
2023
Additional
Front-Line
Apparatus
Needed to
Serve Renton
Growth, 2023
Percentage of
Planned
Additions
Related to
Renton Growth
Unit Cost
of
Apparatus
Impact Fee
Eligible
Costs
Cost of
Future
Reserve
Capacity
Engine 2 1.2 59% $886,193 $1,045,708 $460,820
Aid
Vehicle
1 0.6 59% $393,629 $232,241 $102,344
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-69
System Improvement Costs Already Incurred
As discussed in Section 3.2, the RRFA has excess capacity at stations systemwide to accommodate
increased emergency response staffing. Between 2017 and 2022, the RRFA intends to increase response
and EMS staffing by 21% from 130 to 157 FTE systemwide. Exhibit 3-57 calculates the total station
value associated the station capacity needed to accommodate this increase in response and EMS staffing,
systemwide.
Exhibit 3-57. Value of Station Capacity Needed for Growth-Related Response Staffing Increases
Description Value
A. Total station square feet in RRFA inventory (from
B. Exhibit 3-4)
90,574
C. Total cost per building square foot (from Exhibit 3-11) $906.23
D. Total value of RRFA station inventory (A multiplied by B) $82,080,489
E. Baseline percentage of RRFA station capacity in use (from
F. Exhibit 3-2)
66%
G. Value of station capacity in use (C multiplied by D) $54,098,504
H. Percent increase in response and EMS staffing, 2017-2023 21%
I. Value of increased in usage of station capacity (E multiplied by F) $11,235,843
J. Percentage of projected service area growth inside City of Renton (from
Exhibit 3-51)
81%
K. Value of increased usage of station capacity needed to accommodate City of
Renton growth (G multiplied by H)
$9,090,225
Exhibit 3-58 shows remaining debt service on RRFA stations. The remaining debt service for Fire Station
13 does not exceed the total value of increased station capacity needed to accommodate response
staffing needed to serve Renton growth (row I in Exhibit 3-57). Therefore, the entire amount of this debt
service is impact fee eligible.13
13 Note that RCW 82.02.050(2) states that “…the financing for system improvements to serve new development … cannot
rely solely on impact fees.” Other City of Renton and KCFD 40 revenues have previously contributed to the debt servicing on
Station 13. Therefore, impact fees are not the sole source of revenues for paying Station 13 debt servicing.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-70
Exhibit 3-58. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Associated with Past System Improvements
Station Name Address Debt Service Payments
9/2017 – 9/2023
Fire Station 13 108th Ave SE; Renton, WA 98055 $1,902,960
New Fire Station Needs
As discussed in Section 3.3, RRFA is building a new station in the Kennydale neighborhood. The station will
expand response capacity to serve new growth as well as improve responses time in the Kennydale. The
total estimated cost of this station is $6,750,000. RRFA’s assessment of current call loads and response
times indicates that 50 percent of the response capacity in this new station will address existing
deficiencies while 50 percent will expand capacity to serve future growth. While a portion of these costs
are impact fee eligible, Fire Station 15 will be funded by the City of Renton with other resources.
Growth-Related Capital Projects Associated with Station Operational Needs
While RRFA has sufficient station capacity for meeting the needs of future growth, increased demands for
service will require some renovations of existing space accommodate increased service demands. Exhibit
3-59 lists these growth-related capital projects at stations and provides estimated costs.
Exhibit 3-59. Station Capital Costs Associated with Growth-Related Operational Needs
Station Name Description Estimated
Cost*
Percent
Growth-
Related
Impact Fee
Eligible Costs
Admin
Headquarters
Tennant Improvement for Added
Administrative Staff
$194,066 81% $157,194
Fire Station 11 Modify Source Capture Exhaust
System for Added Rescue Truck
$8,732 81% $7,073
Fire Station 13 Major remodel to improve turnout
time
$1,786,651 81% $1,447,187
Fire Station 14 Remodel for adding Low Acuity
Unit and Staff
$170,336 81% $137,972
Total $2,153,031 $1,743,955
*Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate includes Hard and Soft Costs and excludes Escalation, see Estimating Approach
Summary of Impact Fee Eligible Project Costs
Exhibit 3-60 and
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-71
Exhibit 3-61 present RRFA’s capital facility needs during the six-year period of 2018-2023. It includes
both replacements to existing apparatus as well as fleet expansions necessitated by new growth, Station
13 debt servicing, new stations, and station renovations for to address growth-related operational needs.
Each project includes total cost as well as the proportion of that cost that is reasonably related to serving
new growth in the City of Renton.
Exhibit 3-60. RRFA Capital Costs for Apparatus, 2018-2023
Project Description Quantity Average
Unit Cost
Total Cost
(2017$)
Percentage Related
to City of Renton
Growth, 2017-2023
Impact Fee
Eligible Costs
(2017$)
Apparatus Replacements
Aid Unit 4 $393,629 $1,574,516 0% $0
Battalion Command
Vehicle
1 $67,170 $67,170 0% $0
Dive Apparatus 3 $115,333 $346,000 0% $0
Ladder Truck 1 $1,463,812 $1,463,812 0% $0
Staff Vehicle 14 $33,427 $467,975 0% $0
Engine 6 $886,193 $5,317,158 0% $0
Miscellaneous 4 $57,000 $228,000 0% $0
Apparatus Fleet Expansions
Engine 2 $886,193 $1,772,386 59% $1,045,708
Aid Vehicle 1 $393,629 $393,629 59% $232,241
Apparatus Total $11,402,646 $1,277,949
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-72
Exhibit 3-61. RRFA Capital Facility Costs for Stations, 2018-2023
Project Description Total Cost
(2017$)
Percentage Related
to City of Renton
Growth
Impact Fee
Eligible Costs
(2017$)
Station Debt Servicing
Fire Station 13 Debt Service Payments $1,902,960 100% $1,902,960
New Station Development
Fire Station 15* $6,375,000 50% $3,187,500
Station Renovations for Operational Needs
All Stations: Alerting System Improvements $306,360 0% $0
All Stations: Bay Door Control Improvements $36,763 0% $0
Headquarters: Renovation for Offices and
Support for Four Added Administrative Staff
$194,066 81% $157,194
Fire Station 11: Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$716,777 0% $0
Fire Station 12: Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$315,489 0% $0
Fire Station 13: Major Remodel to Improve
Turnout Time
$1,786,651 81% $1,447,187
Fire Station 13: Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$81,696 0% $0
Fire Station 14: Light Remodel for Low Acuity
Unit and Added Staff
$170,336 81% $137,972
Fire Station 14: Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$287,272 0% $0
Fire Station 16: Remodel for Operational
Improvements
$210,120 0% $0
Total Station Costs $12,383,490 $6,832,813
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-73
IMPACT FEE RATE ADJUSTMENTS
Exhibit 3-62 summarizes total impact fee eligible costs and accounts for revenues that RRFA and City of
Renton plan to use for funding a portion of impact fee eligible costs. The remaining impact fee eligible
costs are $4,924,864, or 61 percent of total impact fee eligible costs.
Exhibit 3-62. Impact Fee Eligible Costs Compared to Projected Impact Fee Revenues, 2018-2023
Description Estimated Cost/Revenue
Total Impact Fee Eligible Costs (Apparatus + Stations) $8,110,762
Payments from Other Revenue Sources $3,187,500
Remaining Impact Fee Eligible Costs $4,923,262
Percentage of Impact Fee Eligible Costs to by Funded with Impact Fee
Revenues
61%
Projected Impact Fee Revenues Assuming Renton Adopts Total Cost Per Unit
of Development*
$5,051,902
Projected Revenues in Excess of Remaining Impact Fee Eligible Costs $128,640
Impact Fee Eligible Costs as a Percentage of Maximum Projected Revenues 97%
* Assumes City of Renton implements an impact fee schedule equal to the full capital costs per unit of development shown in
Exhibit 3-50.
Also shown in Exhibit 3-62 are projected impact fee revenues, assuming the city implements an impact
fee schedule equal to the full capital costs per unit of development shown in Exhibit 3-50.14 Remaining
impact fee eligible costs amount to about 97 percent of these projected revenues. Therefore, to avoid
collecting more impact fee revenue than impact fee eligible capital costs, the full capital costs per unit of
development are multiplied by 97 percent to determine the fire impact fee rate.
14 Projected residential impact fee revenues are based on housing unit growth targets published in the City of Renton
Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2015. It assumes an average annual net gain of 611 housing units, which is similar to the rate
of 598 experienced between 2010 and 2017. Nonresidential impact fee revenue is projected based on the average ratio of
estimated nonresidential fire impact fee revenue to estimated residential fire impact fee revenue in the City of Renton
between 2014 and 2016. This projection assumes that the average ratio remains constant through 2023.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2017 Rate Study for Fire Impact Fees | Fire Impact Fee Methodology 3-74
Exhibit 3-63. Fire Impact Fee Rate Schedule
Land Use Unit Total Cost of
Response Per Unit
of Development
Percentage
Needed for
Eligible Costs
Fire Impact Fee
Single-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $851.45 97% $829.77
Multi-Family Residential Dwelling Unit $989.73 97% $964.53
Hotel/Motel/Resort Square Foot $1.32 97% $1.29
Medical Care Facility Square Foot $4.03 97% $3.92
Office Square Foot $0.27 97% $0.26
Medical/Dental Office Square Foot $2.04 97% $1.99
Retail Square Foot $1.29 97% $1.25
Leisure Facilities Square Foot $2.42 97% $2.36
Restaurant/Lounge Square Foot $6.08 97% $5.92
Industrial/Manufacturing Square Foot $0.15 97% $0.15
Church/Non-Profit Square Foot $0.58 97% $0.56
Education Square Foot $0.73 97% $0.72
Special Public Facilities Square Foot $4.60 97% $4.48
RCW82.02.050(2) requires that “…the financing for system improvements to serve new development …
cannot rely solely on impact fees.” As shown in Exhibit 3-62, the remaining impact fee eligible costs used
as the basis for the impact fee calculation amount to just 61 percent of total impact fee eligible costs.
Therefore, the rates in Exhibit 3-63, which are based on only 61 percent of total impact fee eligible
costs, comply with RCW82.02.050(2).
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
FIREIMPACTFEES-RENTONFIREAUTHORITYPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
BACKGROUND•Renton Regional Fire Authority began operations began July 1, 2016•With change to Fire Authority•Need to adopt Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)•Need to adopt interlocal agreement•Request the City collect impact fees on their behalf•City currently collects Fire Impact Fee directly•City also needs to amend Code to facilitate this changeAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CAPITALFACILITIESPLAN•Identifies capital facility needs necessary to maintain levels of service with impacts of expected development and population growth •6 year time frame, 2018‐2023•Is consistent with the land use and transportation elements of the City and County comprehensive plans•Also identifies fiscal policies and funding resources for implementationAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CAPITALFACILITIESPLAN•CFP includes:•Inventory of existing capital facilities owned by RRFA•Forecast of the future needs for capital facilities•The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities•Plan to finance capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identified sources of money•One of those sources is impact feesAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
IMPACTFEES•Authorized by RCW 82.02.050•Impact fees help infrastructure keep levels of service same as growth occurs•Transportation, Parks, Fire, and Schools•Help ensure existing taxpayers don’t assume cost burden associated with maintaining levels of service•Paid once by new construction •Only expended for physical improvements, not administrative, operating, or maintenanceAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
RATESTUDY•Rate Study determined the rate impact fees should be for growth to pay proportionate share •Categorized by land use •Those rates used by Capital Facilities Plan to develop six year funding planAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
IMPACTFEERATESUse PerCurrent RateProposed RateSingle FamilyDwelling Unit $718.56 $829.77Multi FamilyDwelling Unit $718.56 $964.53Hotel/Motel/ResortSquare Foot $.94 $1.29Medical Care FacilitySquare Foot $8.04 $3.92OfficeSquare Foot $.21 $.26Medical/Dental OfficeSquare Foot $1.26 $1.99RetailSquare Foot $.88 $1.25Leisure FacilitiesSquare Foot $1.98 $2.36Restaurant/LoungeSquare Foot $2.67 $5.92Industrial/ManufacturingSquare Foot $.12 $.15Church/Non‐ProfitSquare Foot $.36 $.56EducationSquare Foot $.66 $.72Special Public FacilitiesSquare Foot $4.83 $4.48
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
RATECOMPARISONCity Per 2017 RateAuburnDwelling Unit $326.66IssaquahDwelling Unit $769.44EnumclawDwelling Unit $2,383.13KentDwelling Unit $1,567.16Maple ValleyDwelling Unit $1,739.61Mill CreekDwelling Unit $365.00North BendDwelling Unit $622.25RedmondDwelling Unit $116.90RentonDwelling Unit $829.77TukwilaDwelling Unit $922.00•Per single family dwellingAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CITYCODE•Current code City collects fire impact fee directly•Needs to be amended to collect on RRFA’s behalf•Same as School District’s•An Interlocal Agreement between the City and the RRFA will also need to be adoptedAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
STAFFRECOMMENDATION•Amend the impact fees code section to collect fire impact fees on behalf of the Renton Regional Fire Authority•Adopt the Fire Authority’s Capital Facilities Plan into the Capital Facilities element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan•Update the impact fee rates as requested by the Fire AuthorityAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Deliberations and RecommendationOctober 18, 2017NEXTSTEPAGENDA ITEM #1. b)
AB - 1987
City Council Regular Meeting - 11 Sep 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: 2017 Long Range Planning Fall Work Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning Commission and Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
EXT.: 6576
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
RMC 4-8-070G outlines the types of review the Planning Commission shall conduct. The review of the
Development Regulations (Title IV Docket) process is specifically listed. Land Use Regulations review occurs
upon Council request. The Planning Commission will make recommendations regarding the Land Use
Regulations to the Council. Final recommendation of the Title IV Docket will be the authority of the Council.
The process is codified in RMC 4-9-025, Title IV Development Regulation Revision Process. Below is a list of the
items staff is recommending be included in the 2017 fall work program:
• Nonconforming Development Standards
• Final Plat Authority
• Text Amendment Exemptions
• Group Homes
• Green Building
• Administrative Code Interpretations
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Refer to the Planning & Development Committee and Planning Commission for review. Following this review,
the Planning Commission will present code revision recommendations to Council.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Other Title IV Code Amendments\2017 Fall Grouping\Issue Paper 8.31.17.doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 31, 2017
TO: Armondo Pavone, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor
FROM: C. E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator (x6588)
SUBJECT: 2017 Long Range Planning Fall Work Program
ISSUE:
Should the Long Range Planning’s fall work program be referred to the Planning &
Development Committee and the Planning Commission?
RECOMMENDATION:
Refer the work program to the Planning and Development Committee and Planning
Commission for review.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
RMC 4-8-070G outlines the types of review the Planning Commission shall conduct. The
review of the Development Regulations (Title IV Docket) process is specifically listed.
Land Use Regulations review occurs upon Council request. The Planning Commission
will make recommendations regarding the Land Use Regulations to the Council. Final
recommendation of the Title IV Docket will be the authority of the Council. The process
is codified in RMC 4-9-025, Title IV Development Regulation Revision Process. Below is a
list of the items staff is recommending be included in the 2017 fall work program.
• Nonconforming Development Standards – The City has provisions for
nonconforming lots, structures, uses, animals, and signs. However, the code
section for nonconforming development standards is “reserved”. Provisions that
address nonconforming development standards need to be established.
• Final Plat Authority – The Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5674 in early 2017,
which allows final plats, resulting in the subdivision of ten or more lots, to be
approved administratively (i.e., approved by staff) instead of legislatively (i.e.,
approved by City Council). The legislative process can be time consuming while
administrative approval can occur within a shorter timeframe. The Master
Builders Association has requested the City consider amending code to allow for
administrative approval of final plats.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
• Text Amendment Exemptions - Due to the time and resources required to
amend any text of RMC Title IV, Development Regulations, necessary
administrative and procedural updates are often postponed. State law allows for
the ability to advance purely administrative or procedural RMC amendments
directly to Council (i.e., without Planning Commission recommendations), and to
allow the City Clerk to make necessary clerical corrections to ordinances, upon
approval of the City Attorney, when such changes are not substantive.
• Group Homes – Currently, the City has several different uses that are types of
group homes, such as congregate residences, adult family homes, and different
levels of group homes. The code needs to be reviewed to ensure it is clear and
consistent in regards to these uses and as to what distinguishes them from each
other. Additionally, there have been recent court decisions regarding group
homes and the code needs to be reviewed to ensure it is not in conflict with
these decisions.
• Green Building – King County intends to construct two projects in Renton that
would meet the standards of the Living Building Challenge for green buildings
and sustainable design. Renton’s Code needs to be reviewed and amended to
provide flexibility in some of the prescriptive standards so that the County can
proceed with the projects.
• Code Interpretations – The City has approximately 16 Administrative Code
Interpretations that have been completed thus far in 2017. Annually, staff
processes the group of code interpretations for full review of the Planning
Commission and Council. This item is to complete the annual review.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed schedule for review of these Title IV Amendments is for the Planning
Commission review to occur during September 2017 through November 2017.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
2015 TITLE IV DOCKET #11 AMENDMENTS
Density bonuses in the R-14, RM-F, and COR zones
Review the provisions for density bonuses and establish a direct correlation to the bonus criteria and the number
of bonus units allowed.
Public Meetings
Consider requiring a public meeting (neighborhood meeting) for subdivisions and PUDs. This applies to formal
plats, not short plats and includes staff and the developer.
Street Frontage Improvements
Review fee-in-lieu of program for frontage improvements in consideration of areas with no frontage
improvements, such as the Benson area.
Installation of Public Information Sign
Currently only subdivisions require the placement of a Public Information Sign prior to land use
entitlement submittal. However, there are several commercial and other residential projects from
which the public could benefit from information posted on a public information sign. A public
information sign be required for all Type II permits or greater. Additionally, the description of a public
information sign can only be found in RMC 4-7-070.G. In my opinion this description should also be
moved to RMC 4-8-090.
Downtown Business District Map
Review the current Downtown Business District Map based on the work completed by the City Center Community
Plan Advisory Board and Planning Commission.
Residential Building Height
Review the Administrative Code Interpretation that changed the method of measuring height and height
allowances, and consider allowing more height in specific zones.
Impact Fee Deferral
Update our impact fee program to reflect changes made by the State Legislature to state law for deferral of
impact fees
Maintaining Health Standards for Housing
Consider implementing a proactive rental housing inspection program by requiring landlords to maintain a City
business license. Such a requirement would work to ensure that rental housing in Renton meets the eight
principles of healthy housing: moisture free, adequately ventilated, contaminant free, free of pests, clean, well-
maintained, free of injury hazards, and thermally controlled.
Setbacks in Commercial and Mixed Use Zones
Review all commercial setbacks with respect to desired public presence in relation to the street. Consider width
of sidewalk, landscape strip, height of building, and site of public realm.
Subarea, Community, and District Plans
Review the following subarea, community, and district plans for consistency in advancing City policies under the
Comprehensive Plan and other relevancies: South Renton Neighborhood Plan, Automall Plan, Downtown Plan,
Airport Plan, Soos Creek Community Plan, Community Development Plan, Beautification Plan, and Valley Plan.
Assisted Living, Senior Housing, Convalescent Center
Guidance is needed for Assisted Living, Senior Housing, and Convalescent Centers. These uses are increasing
exponentially in the City and it is unclear where these uses should be allowed and to what intensity especially in
residential zones.
CA Zone
The City currently has a moratorium on new residential development in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone,
except for the City Center Community Planning Area. The moratorium is in place primarily due to concern that
the maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre that is allowed in the zone is placing too much burden on
infrastructure. The City will consider how to address the concerns and resolve them so that the moratorium can
be either repealed or expired.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
110/12/2017
Patti Southard -King County GreenTools
LEED AP, SBA, IDP Professional
Honorary AIA, LFA accredited
Regional Code Collaboration
and Living Buildings in K4C Cities;
Renton Planning & Development Committee
“The whole is greater than the sum
of its parts.” -Aristotle
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
210/12/2017
King County Leads by Example
King County Executive
Dow Constantine
•Create partnerships in King County Cities
through the K4C
•Evaluate how we get things done not
whether we do it
•Surface and resolve barriers
•Be a model for other local governments
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
310/12/2017
K4C Commitments
Pathway: Reduce energy use in all existing
buildings 25% below 2012 levels by 2030;
achieve net-zero GHG emissions in new
buildings by 2030.
Catalytic Policy Commitment: Join the
Regional Code Collaboration and work to
adopt code pathways that build on the
Washington State Energy Code, leading the
way to “net-zero
carbon” buildings through innovation in
local codes, ordinances, and related
partnerships.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
410/12/2017
Regional Code Collaboration (RCC)
•Proactive & Collaborative!
•Resource Efficient
•Regional approach to common
issues
•Regional Transparency
•3 Counties-
King, Snohomish, Peirce
•12 Cities-
Edmonds, Kirkland, Issaquah,
Mount Lake Terrace, Normandy
Park, Redmond, Renton,
Sammamish, Seattle, Shoreline,
Snoqulamie, Tacoma AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
510/12/2017
2017 Work Program
•Work with subcommittees on new
initiatives:
“Reach” energy code, C&D
ordinance, low impact
development, MF Recycling code
Living Building Demonstration
Ordinances
•Implement new energy code and
C&D ordinance
•Completed Shoreline Ordinance in
April working with Bellevue and
Renton
K4C Mayor’s Summit June 2014
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
610/12/2017
Strategic Climate Action Plan
Register 10 Living Building Projects by
2020 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
710/12/2017
What is the Living Building Challenge?AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
810/12/2017
7 Petals 20 Imperatives
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
910/12/2017
Multiple Certification Levels
•Full Living Building Certification -Meets all 7 petals and all 20 Imperatives
•Petal Certification -3 petals
•Net Zero Energy –building produces more energy than it uses
•Living Community Challenge
•Zero Energy AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1010/12/2017
King County Parks Maintenance Facility
Project Scope:
•Re-development of infrastructure, utilities and site.
•Facilities (Approx. 50,000 SF) and yard systems.
•Fleet and equipment parking.
•Staff and visitor parking.
•Mixed occupancy (shop, crew, administration, and
training).
•Phased construction to allow existing operations to
remain operational during construction.
Seeking Petal Certification AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1110/12/2017
Wastewater Treatment Division
SEED Classroom
Seek Full LBC Certification
Project Scope Under Consideration:
•A dedicated educational classroom at
South Plant.
•Design to achieve Living Building
Certification.
•Classroom for use by WTD Education
Unit.
•Classroom use by Community
Partners for new programming.
•A 1,000 SF prefabricated building.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1210/12/2017
Renton Sunset
RHA in partnership with
Homestead Community Land Trust
Scope of Project:
•New construction development consisting
of 12 townhomes located in the Sunset area
of the Highlands in Renton, Washington
•The townhomes total approximately 17,000 gross
square feet consisting of the 12 townhomes at
1,400 square feet each.
•The homes will have a majority of 3 Bedrooms
with the possibility of some 4 Bedroom units
•Each home will have ground level garage parking
within the unit.
Seeking Zero Energy
Certification AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1310/12/2017
Code Considerations
•Residential density limits
•Parking requirements (not applicable in R-4 and R-6 zones):
•Lot coverage standards, as determined necessary by the Director; (need exemption for
maximum structure coverage if you need a large roof to get solar panels)
•Use provisions, as determined necessary by the Director
•Standards for storage of solid-waste containers;
•Standards for structural building overhangs and minor architectural encroachments into the
right-of-way;
•Structure height bonus
•Reduced minimum setback
•Reduced minimum landscape standards or allowance for vertical landscaping (living wall) in lieu
of horizontal. (this tradeoff is more important when one needs a big roof with solar –less room
for plants)
•Reduction in fence screening requirements for materials storage.
•Increase maximum parking allowed in exchange for X amount of stalls with electric chargers.
•Increase maximum parking allowed for fleet/equipment vehicles.
•Allow geothermal (horizontal or vertical) system in APA/wellhead protection zone
•Allow alternative energy generation systems to exceed max structure height or not count in lot
coverage.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1410/12/2017 AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
1510/12/2017
Thank You!
Questions?
Patti Southard
206 477 4621
Patti.southard@kingcounty.gov
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Administrative Code Interpretations Page 1 of 4
Administrative Code Interpretations
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: October 4, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: N/A
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Title IV, Development Regulations, of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) are proposed
to be amended based on recent administrative interpretations (attached) of unclear or contradictory
code. These administrative decisions have already become effective. This report to the Planning
Commission is part of the process by which the print version of the code is to be amended based on
such decisions. Municipal code section 4-1-080 provides guidance for Administrative Interpretations as it
states:
RMC 4-1-080.A.1.a: The Community and Economic Development Administrator, or designee, is
hereby authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or
contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Title IV
Development Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of
the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations
are assumed to prevail over other regulations.
Interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory regulations. Examples include
mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for users, and where certain situations
were not evaluated in updating Title IV. Each decision has a public appeal period and is supplied with a
background, justification, decision, and recommended code amendment. For more information about
the process or each determination, go to:
Background and decision: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24686
Process: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24684
Staff Recommendation: Amend code as described by each Administrative Code Interpretation shown
below.
Impact Analysis:
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Administrative Code Interpretations Page 2 of 4 October 4, 2017
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as written within each Administrative Code
Interpretation abbreviated below.
CI-108 – Lot Types and Measurements: CI-108 corrected discrepancies associated with lot type
classification and the method of measuring their dimensions.
CI-109 – Assisted Living Footnote Cleanup: CI-109 corrected Conditions applied to the Zoning
Use Table, specifically those related to the Assisted Living Facilities and bonus density
provisions.
CI-110: RESCINDED
CI-111 – Residential Front Yard Setback Averaging: CI-111 eliminated a provision that allowed a
reduced front yard setback based on the average front yard setback of adjacent properties. The
provision was removed because averaging allowed consideration of nonconforming front yard
setbacks.
CI-112 – Exemption Valuation for New Construction or Additions: Prior to CI-112 and since
1995, new construction or additions to existing structures triggered a requirement to bring
improvements in the right-of-way (e.g., curb, sidewalk, planting strip, etc.) up to current
standards (i.e., replacing substandard sidewalk with the new standard) when the value of such
construction or additions exceeded $50,000. CI-112 increases this value threshold to $150,000
based on inflation and the increase in construction costs since 1995.
CI-113 – Extended Approval for Conditional Use Permits: Building permits, licenses or land use
permits required for the fulfillment of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be applied for within
two years of the CUP approval. There are times when it’s practical to extend this timeframe
(e.g., for projects that are anticipated to be constructed in phases). CI-113 allows the period of
validity for a CUP to be extended beyond the standard two year time frame.
CI-114 – RESCINDED
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Administrative Code Interpretations Page 3 of 4 October 4, 2017
CI-115 – Vehicle Storage in IM and IH Zones within the Valley: CI-115 corrects a Condition to
the Use Table by allowing, through a CUP, vehicle storage in the Medium-Industrial (IM) and
Heavy-Industrial (IH) zones within the valley (south of I-405 and west of SR-167).
CI-116 – Definition of a Legal Lot: CI-116 clarifies the definition of a “legal lot” and “lot
combination,” and allows lots previously merged by the construction of a dwelling unit over a
common lot line to be segregated if the dwelling is removed, the lots in question were legally
created, and both lots meet the current lot area, lot width, and lot depth of the zone.
CI-117 – On Hold
CI-118 – Correcting Condition #29 & References within the Use Table: Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designations are sometimes used as geographic limits of allowed uses. The 2015
Comprehensive Plan resulted in the merger of some Land Use Designations, which required
those previous locational limits to be described within Conditions to the Zoning Use Table. CI-
118 corrects the geographic limits of certain industrial uses by more accurately defining their
geographic bounds.
CI-119 – Automall Uses, Street Frontage Landscaping Applicability, and Design District D
Exceptions: CI-119 expands the Automall Overlay to some land in the valley along East Valley
Road. The expansion carries with it the street frontage landscaping requirements and the design
standards of the original Automall Overlay.
CI-120 – Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements: CI-120 corrects the dimensional
requirements for interior parking lot landscape islands by sizing them to be equal to the
dimensions of a parking lot stall.
CI-121 – Incorrect Code Reference in Lowest Floor Definition: Corrects a reference within Title
IV to another provision of Title IV regarding the definition of “lowest floor.”
CI-122 – Critical Areas Variances: Variance Procedures allow for administrative variances and
special review criteria for each critical area with the exception of steep slopes and very high
landslide hazards. The Variance Procedures clearly provide authority to the Administrator to
grant variances from the geologic hazard requirements of RMC 4-3-050. However, special review
criteria are not specified as it is with each of the other critical areas. CI-122 provides the missing
special review criteria.
CI-123 – Fee In-Lieu for Replacement Trees: CI-123 provides an opportunity to pay a fee in-lieu
of replanting for existing development when trees are removed without permission. The option
to pay a fee in-lieu currently exists for new development that removes trees without permission.
CI-124 – Exception for Shared Driveways and Eligibility of Joint Use Driveways: CI-124 clarified
the street frontage length required for properties fronting a public street and shared driveway,
increased the allowed length of shared driveways to mirror the roadway limitations for dead-
end streets with emergency turnarounds, clarified which types of easements are deducted from
density calculations, and allow an alternative lot orientation to better facilitate infill
development within narrow yet deep lots.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Administrative Code Interpretations Page 4 of 4 October 4, 2017
CI-125 – Unit Lot Subdivisions in the CV Zone: In 2016, code was developed for Unit Lot
Subdivisions, which allow the creation of fee-simple lots for individual townhouse units. While
the Center Village (CV) zone allows commercial uses, within most of the zone standalone
townhouse development (i.e., no commercial component) is allowed. CI-125 extends the option
to create Unit Lot Subdivisions to the CV zone.
CI-126 – Helipads in the UC Zone: CI-126 clarifies the boundaries of the former UC-N2 (generally
the Boeing Company’s property and Southport), wherein helipads is an allowed use subject to a
Conditional Use Permit.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
ADMINISTRATIVECODEINTERPRETATIONSPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CI-108 – Lot Types and Measurements: CI-108 corrected discrepancies associated with lot type classification and the method of measuring their dimensions.CI-109 – Assisted Living Footnote Cleanup: CI-109 corrected Conditions applied to the Zoning Use Table, specifically those related to the Assisted Living Facilities and bonus density provisions. CI-110 – RESCINDEDCI-111 – Residential Front Yard Setback Averaging: CI-111 eliminated a provision that allowed a reduced front yard setback based on the average front yard setback of adjacent properties. The provision was removed because averaging allowed consideration of nonconforming front yard setbacks.CI-112 – Exemption Valuation for New Construction or Additions: Prior to CI-112 and since 1995, new construction or additions to existing structures triggered a requirement to bring improvements in the right-of-way (e.g., curb, sidewalk, planting strip, etc.) up to current standards (i.e., replacing substandard sidewalk with the new standard) when the value of such construction or additions exceeded $50,000. CI-112 increases this value threshold to $150,000 based on inflation and the increase in construction costs since 1995. AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CI-113 – Extended Approval for Conditional Use Permits: Building permits, licenses or land use permits required for the fulfillment of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) must be applied for within two years of the CUP approval. There are times when it’s practical to extend this timeframe (e.g., for projects that are anticipated to be constructed in phases). CI-113 allows the period of validity for a CUP to be extended beyond the standard two year time frame.CI-114: RESCINDEDCI-115 – Vehicle Storage in IM and IH Zones within the Valley: CI-115 corrects a Condition to the Use Table by allowing, through a CUP, vehicle storage in the Medium-Industrial (IM) and Heavy-Industrial (IH) zones within the valley (south of I-405 and west of SR-167).CI-116 – Definition of a Legal Lot: CI-116 clarifies the definition of a “legal lot” and “lot combination,” and allows lots previously merged by the construction of a dwelling unit over a common lot line to be segregated if the dwelling is removed, the lots in question were legally created, and both lots meet the current lot area, lot width, and lot depth of the zone.CI-117: On HoldAGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CI-118 – Correcting Condition #29 & References within the Use Table: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are sometimes used as geographic limits of allowed uses. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan resulted in the merger of some Land Use Designations, which required those previous locational limits to be described within Conditions to the Zoning Use Table. CI-118 corrects the geographic limits of certain industrial uses by more accurately defining their geographic bounds. CI-119 – Automall Uses, Street Frontage Landscaping Applicability, and Design District D Exceptions: CI-119 expands the Automall Overlay to some land in the valley along East Valley Road. The expansion carries with it the street frontage landscaping requirements and the design standards of the original Automall Overlay.CI-120 – Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Requirements: CI-120 corrects the dimensional requirements for interior parking lot landscape islands by sizing them to be equal to the dimensions of a parking lot stall. CI-121 – Incorrect Code Reference in Lowest Floor Definition: Corrects a reference within Title IV to another provision of Title IV regarding the definition of “lowest floor.”AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CI-122 – Critical Areas Variances: Variance Procedures allow for administrative variances and special review criteria for each critical area with the exception of steep slopes and very high landslide hazards. The Variance Procedures clearly provide authority to the Administrator to grant variances from the geologic hazard requirements of RMC 4-3-050. However, special review criteria are not specified as it is with each of the other critical areas. CI-122 provides the missing special review criteria.CI-123 – Fee In-Lieu for Replacement Trees: CI-123 provides an opportunity to pay a fee in-lieu of replanting for existing development when trees are removed without permission. The option to pay a fee in-lieu currently exists for new development that removes trees without permission. CI-124 – Exception for Shared Driveways and Eligibility of Joint Use Driveways: CI-124 clarified the street frontage length required for properties fronting a public street and shared driveway, increased the allowed length of shared driveways to mirror the roadway limitations for dead-end streets with emergency turnarounds, clarified which types of easements are deducted from density calculations, and allow an alternative lot orientation to better facilitate infill development within narrow yet deep lots. AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CI-125 – Unit Lot Subdivisions in the CV Zone: In 2016, code was developed for Unit Lot Subdivisions, which allow the creation of fee-simple lots for individual townhouse units. While the Center Village (CV) zone allows commercial uses, within most of the zone standalone townhouse development (i.e., no commercial component) is allowed. CI-125 extends the option to create Unit Lot Subdivisions to the CV zone. CI-126 – Helipads in the UC Zone: CI-126 clarifies the boundaries of the former UC-N2 (generally the Boeing Company’s property and Southport), wherein helipads is an allowed use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. c)
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Nonconforming Uses, Structure, and Sites Page 1 of 4
Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Sites
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: October 4, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: N/A
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: A nonconforming use is a use of property that was allowed under the zoning
regulations at the time the use was established but which, because of subsequent changes in those
regulations or rezoning, is no longer a permitted use.
A nonconforming structure is a structure that complied with zoning and development regulations at the
time it was built (e.g., height limits, setbacks, building coverage, etc.) but which, because of subsequent
changes to the zoning and/or development regulations, no longer fully complies with those regulations.
A nonconforming site is one that, at the time of its establishment, met the minimum development
standards (e.g., parking, landscaping, screening, ingress/egress, etc.) for the zone in which it is located
but which, because of subsequent changes to development standards to that zone, is now noncompliant
with current standards.
State law does not regulate nonconforming uses, structures, or sites. So, local jurisdictions are allowed,
within certain constitutional limits, to establish their own standards for regulation of these
nonconformities. The theory of the code is that the nonconforming use/structure/site is detrimental to
some of those public interests (health, safety, or general welfare) which justify the invoking of police
power (i.e., zoning and development standards). Although found to be detrimental to important public
interests, nonconforming uses/structures/sites are allowed to continue based on the belief that it would
be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to require an immediate cessation or correction of a
nonconforming use/structure/site.
The City’s nonconforming use and structure codes (separate code Sections) are intended to provide a
degree of certainty and protection to any legally established uses/structures should the use/structure be
damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God; provided, that the restoration work is initiated by a permit
application within one year of the fire or other casualty. If a permit application has not been submitted
within one year from the date of the natural event then the nonconforming use/structure is deemed
abandoned and not allowed to be continued, restored or reconstructed and the subsequent
use/structure shall be in compliance with the minimum standards of the zone which is applicable.
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) currently lacks any code regarding nonconforming sites. As a result,
should a property owner rebuild a damaged structure or voluntarily reinvest in the structure through
improvements, remodels, or additions, the City cannot require any improvements to the site itself,
except for a provision addressing a change of use and the deficit of parking that may result. However,
this provision merely compares the required number of parking stalls of the previous use to the required
number of parking stalls of the proposed new use; therefore, if the site was already nonconforming with
respect to parking (i.e., fewer stalls than the use required) and the required number of stalls of each use
is equal, no additional parking is needed even though the site may have drastically fewer stalls than it
should.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Sites Page 2 of 4 October 4, 2017
Staff Recommendation: Amend code as follows:
Parking:
Upon a change of use, if the number of stalls needed for the new use exceeds the actual
number of existing stalls on site by a percentage threshold equal or greater than shown in
the table below, all of the stalls needed for the new use shall be provided. This would provide
some relief for businesses because often not enough land area that can be converted into
parking exists on previously developed sites.
Existing Stalls Percentage Threshold
1-10 140%
11-30 130%
31+ 120%
For example, if the calculated number of stalls needed for a retail store equals fifteen (15)
and only ten (10) stalls exist on site, then all fifteen (15) stalls shall be provided because the
percentage difference between the number of stalls needed for the new use and the number
of existing stalls on site exceeds 140% [1.40 x 10 = 14].
However, upon a change of use to any of the following uses, the new use shall provide the
total number of parking stalls required without the exception noted above:
1) Attached dwelling units (multifamily development)
2) Offices, general
3) Conference centers
4) Movie theaters
Nonconforming Sites:
Require that any alterations to a nonconforming site be in conformance with existing
standards;
Upon the restoration of a structure demolished by fire, explosion or other unforeseen
circumstances to greater than seventy-five percent (75%) of its assessed value on a
nonconforming site, require the site to be brought into conformance with existing
development standards;
For remodels of an existing structure made within any three-year period which together
exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of the previously existing
structure, the site shall be brought into compliance with existing development regulations.
For remodels within any three-year period which exceed thirty percent (30%) of the assessed
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Sites Page 3 of 4 October 4, 2017
value, but do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of assessed value, proportional
compliance shall be required. Remodels within any three-year period that do not exceed
thirty percent (30%) of replacement value shall not be required to comply with the existing
standards;
Upon expansion of any structure or complex of structures within a single site, which is over
fifty percent (50%) of the existing floor area, the site shall be brought into compliance. If the
expansion is fifty percent (50%) or less, the site must be brought into proportional
compliance with existing development standards; and
Proportional compliance would require the equivalent percentage value of the proposed
structure improvements compared to the value of the structure and to be applied to site
improvements. For example, if the owner proposes $10,000 of structure improvements to a
structure valued at $100,000 (i.e., 10% improvement value), and the cost of correcting site
improvements is estimated to be $10,000, then $1,000 (10%) must be applied to correcting
nonconformities.
Nonconforming Structures:
Require that if a nonconforming structure is left vacant for more than one year, the structure
will lose the right to remain nonconforming (this would be a reduction from the current
standard of two years);
Allow nonconforming single-family dwellings to be replaced, enlarged, altered, remodeled, or
renovated, without limitation of cost, pursuant to current code requirements (e.g., height
limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.),unless such actions would increase one or
more nonconformity;
For all other structures, the cost of the alterations, remodels, or renovations must not exceed
an aggregate cost of fifty forty percent (40%) in twelve (12) months or sixty percent (60%) in
forty-eight (48) months of the value of the structure, based upon its most recent assessment
or appraisal, unless the alterations changes make the structure more conforming, or is used
to restore to a safe condition any portion of a structure declared unsafe by the Building
Official. Mandatory improvements for fire, life safety or accessibility, as well as replacement
of mechanical equipment, do not count towards the cited monetary thresholds;
For single-family dwellings, allow the reconstruction, repairing, rebuilding and continued use
of any nonconforming building or structure to its same size, location, and height when the
structure is deemed unsafe by a proper authority, damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God if
a building permit is applied for within one year of the damage.
Nonconforming Uses:
Allow single-family dwellings that are nonconforming as to use to be replaced, enlarged,
altered, remodeled, or renovated, without limitation of cost, pursuant to current code
requirements (e.g., height limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.),unless such
actions would increase one or more nonconformity; and
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Sites Page 4 of 4 October 4, 2017
For all structures nonconforming as to use, allow the use to continue and the structure to be
rebuilt to its same size, location, and height when the structure is deemed unsafe by a proper
authority, damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, if a building permit is applied for within
one year of the damage.
Impact Analysis:
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Allowing nonconforming uses and structures to continue and be improved will likely slow the growth,
development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan, but the proposed provisions are
reasonable and constitutional.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
NONCONFORMINGUSES, STRUCTURES ANDSITESPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Anonconforminguseis a use of property that was allowed under the zoning regulations at the time the use was established but which, because of subsequent changes in those regulations or rezoning, is no longer a permitted use. Anonconformingstructureis a structure that complied with zoning and development regulations at the time it was built (e.g., height limits, setbacks, building coverage, etc.) but which, because of subsequent changes to the zoning and/or development regulations, no longer fully complies with those regulations. Anonconformingsiteis one that, at the time of its establishment, met the minimum development standards (e.g., parking, landscaping, screening, ingress/egress, etc.) but which, because of subsequent changes to development standards, is now noncompliant with current standards.NONCONFORMINGUSES, STRUCTURES ANDSITESAGENDA ITEM #2. d)
NONCONFORMINGUSES•Allow single-family dwellings that are nonconforming as to use to be replaced or enlargedpursuant to current code requirements (e.g., height limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.);All other structures are limited to alterations that do not enlarge or expand the nonconforming use.•For all structures nonconforming as to use, allow the use to continue and the structure to be rebuilt to its same size, location, and height when the structure is damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, if a building permit is applied for within one year of the damage. Changes to a Different Nonconforming Use:Require an Administrative CUP to qualify as a continuation of an existing nonconforming use, in addition to the existingcriteria below:1.Reflect the nature and purpose of the preexisting nonconforming use, and be considered to be the same or related use classification; and2.Be substantially similar or result in a lower impact in its effect on the surrounding neighborhood; and3.Not increase the nonconformance of the use; and4.Not create a new type of nonconformance.AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
NONCONFORMINGSTRUCTURES•Require that if a nonconforming historicstructure is left vacant for more than one yeartwo years, the structure will lose the right to remain nonconforming, but all non-historicstructures are limited to one year (currently two years);•Allow nonconforming single-family dwellings to be replaced, enlarged, altered, remodeled, or renovated, without limitation of cost, pursuant to current code requirements (e.g., height limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.);For all other structures, the cost of the alterations, remodels, or renovations must not exceed an aggregate cost of forty percent (40%) in twelve (12) months or sixty percent (60%) in forty-eight (48) months of the value of the structure. Mandatory improvements for fire, life safety or accessibility, as well as replacement of mechanical equipment, do not count towards the cited monetary thresholds;•For single-family dwellings, allow the reconstruction, repairing, rebuilding and continued use of any nonconforming building or structure to its same size, location, and height when the structure is deemed unsafe by a proper authority, damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God if a building permit is applied for within one year of the damage.For all other structures, the cost of restoration must not exceed 50% of assessed/appraised value, otherwise the structure must be conforming. AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
NONCONFORMINGSITESExisting Stalls Percentage Threshold1‐10 140%11‐30 130%31+ 120%Upon a change of use:•Compare the difference between the calculatednumber of parking stalls needed for a new use to the actualnumber of stalls that exist on-site.•If the difference between the two exceeds the “percentage threshold” shown below, based on the number of existing stalls, then the new use must provide all parking for that use.•For example, if an existing site has only 9 parking stalls and a new 14,000 sq.ft. restaurant is proposed that would require 14 stalls (1 stall per 1,000 sq.ft.), then the site would need to provide the additional 5 parking stalls (1.40 x 9 = 13).•If the restaurant was 13,000 sq.ft. or less then it would be allowed to operate with the existing 9 parking stalls.•The “change of use exception” would not apply to:ExistingStalls% ThresholdStall Threshold for New Use4 140%5.65 140%86 140%97 140%108 140%129 140%1310 130% 1415 130% 2020 130% 2725 130% 3330 130% 4040 120% 4950 120% 6160 120% 731)Residential Uses2)Offices, general3)Conference centers4)Movie theaters5) AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
NONCONFORMINGSITES•Require that any alterations to a nonconforming site be in conformance with existing standards;•Require the site be brought into compliance if:Restoration of damaged property costs more than 75% of its assessed value; and Remodels within any three-year period which together exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the assessed value of the previously existing structure.•Remodels within any three-year period which exceed thirty percent (30%) of the assessed value, but do not exceed one hundred percent (100%) of assessed value, proportional compliance shall be required. •Upon expansion of any structure or complex of structures within a single site during a 3-year timeframe, which is over fifty percent (50%) of the existing floor area, the site shall be brought into compliance. If the expansion is fifty percent (50%) or less, the site must be brought into proportional compliance with existing development standards; and•Proportional compliance would require the equivalent percentage value of the proposed structure improvements, compared to the value of the structure, to be applied to site improvements. For example, if the owner proposes $10,000 of structure improvements to a structure valued at $100,000 (i.e., 10% improvement value), and the cost of correcting site improvements is estimated to be $10,000, then $1,000 (10%) must be applied to correcting nonconformities.AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. d)
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Page 1 of 2
Final Plat Authority
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: September 20, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: King County Master Builders Association
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: The Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 5674 in early 2017, which
allows final plats, resulting in the subdivision of ten or more lots (i.e., distinct from final short plats), to
be approved administratively (i.e., approved by staff). Prior to passage of SB 5674, the authority to
approve final plats resided with the legislative body (e.g., City Council) unless delegated to a Hearing
Examiner, which Renton has done. Because final plat approval is essentially a process by which a
jurisdiction confirms that required infrastructure has been installed and site conditions have been met,
requiring review by a legislative body or Hearing Examiner has long been regarded as an unnecessary
use of time and resources.
The proposed code amendments, enabled by SB 5674, will allow the Administrator of the Public Works
Department to approve final plats after receiving a recommendation of approval by staff of the
Department of Community and Economic Development, which will eliminate unnecessary delays for
developers and reduce City costs.
Background: A final plat is the final drawing of a subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record
with the King County Department of Records and Elections. A final plat contains all elements and
requirements set by the City of Renton. Subdivisions are classified as either a short subdivision, which
divides land into nine or fewer lots, or a subdivision (sometimes called a “full subdivision”), which results
in ten or more lots. The CED Administrator currently has the authority to approve final short plats.
Staff Recommendation: Amend code to allow administrative approval of final plats.
Impact Analysis:
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
AGENDA ITEM #2. e)
Final Plat Authority Page 2 of 2 September 20, 2017
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. e)
FINALPLATAUTHORITYPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. e)
Pre‐Application Mtg.Application SubmissionTechnical Review (staff)Plan RevisionsPreliminary Plat Approval/Denial (HEX Public Hearing)Site Prep. & Infrastructure InstalledInspectionsFinal Plat ApplicationStaff RecommendationHEX Approval/DenialPW Admin & Mayor SignPlat RecordedStaff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #2. e)
Pre‐Application Mtg.Application SubmissionTechnical Review (staff)Plan RevisionsPreliminary Plat Approval/Denial (HEX Public Hearing)Site Prep. & Infrastructure InstalledInspectionsFinal Plat ApplicationStaff RecommendationHEXCED Admin Approval/DenialPW Admin & Mayor SignPlat RecordedStaff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #2. e)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. e)
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Group Homes
Staff: Jennifer Henning
Date: September 20, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
_____________________________________________________________
General Description
Renton has several different uses that are types of group homes, such as congregate
residences, adult family homes, and uses specified as Group Home 1 and Group Home 2.
Renton Municipal Code needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is clear and consistent with
regard to these uses, and as to what distinguishes one group home use from another.
Additionally, there are recent court decisions regarding group homes and the code needs to be
reviewed to ensure it is not in conflict with these decisions.
A group home is commonly referred to as a group residential environment that accommodates
people with mental or physical disabilities. The number of group homes in residential areas has
increased in recent years, prompting questions from residents as to the legal ability to locate in
neighborhoods, particularly single family residential areas.
The governing law for group homes is both federal and state and protects individuals from
discriminatory housing practices. Federal law (Title 42, Chapter 45) prohibits discrimination in
the sale or rental of housing of a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of that
buyer or renter, or a person residing or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold,
rented, or made available to any person associated with that buyer or renter.
The Federal Fair Housing Act Amendment (FHAA) was enacted to protect individuals from
discriminatory housing practices (race, color, religion, sex, family status, or national origin). In
1988, the FHAA was amended to extend protection of the 1968 Fair Housing Act to people with
disabilities. “The Act is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through
land use regulations, restrictive covenants, and conditional use or special permits that have
effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the
community.”
Washington Housing Policy (RCW 35.63.220, RCW 35A.63.240, RCW 36.70.990) requires that no
city enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation or official
control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by
persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or
other unrelated individuals. And, RCW 70.128.140(2) requires that adult family homes must be
considered a residential use of property for zoning and public and private utility rate purposes,
including areas zoned for single family dwellings.
A summary of case law from federal and state courts helps to guide our work on revising
existing regulations. Following are some notable federal cases:
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Group Homes Staff Report Page 2 of 4 September 20, 2017
• City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc. The US Supreme Court held that the 1988 Fair
Housing Act amendments prevent a city from enforcing a zoning ordinance limiting the
number of unrelated persons who could live in a dwelling located in an area zoned for
single family use, if no similar restrictions are imposed on all residents of all dwellings.
• Bay Area Addiction v. City of Antioch – The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to
zoning ordinances.
• Gamble v. City of Escondido – City of Escondido denied a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
to construct a single family residence of 10,360 square feet with 8 bedrooms and 12
bathrooms to house 15 elderly disabled adults with the lower portion serving as an
adult day care facility. The court concluded that the city’s concern for the character of
the neighborhood was legitimate and nondiscriminatory. However, it should be noted
that if an operator can prove that a facility is necessary to serve protected classes, both
neighborhoods and municipalities must be prepared to make concessions.
• Children’s Alliance v. City of Bellevue, determined that a 1,000-foot distance separation
requirement and the limit on the number of the number of residents in certain zones in
the City of Bellevue Code was invalid.
Assessment of Existing Code
Group Homes
RMC 4-11-070 defines Group Homes as either a Group Home I (Rehabilitation, i.e., halfway
houses and substance abuse recovery homes), or a Group Home II (Protective Residency, i.e.,
disabled persons, foster child care, abused women shelter, orphanage, vulnerable/disabled -
not deemed a threat to self or others).
Group Homes are included under “Other Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations” in the
RMC Land Use Table. Group Home I is permitted subject to an Administrative CUP in the
Commercial Arterial (CA) zone and requires a Hearing Examiner CUP in the Center Downtown
(CD) zone.
Group Home II for 6 or less residents are permitted in the residential zones (R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8,
RMH, R-10, R-14, and RMF), the Center Village (CV) zone, the CD zone, and the Center Office
Residential (COR) zone. In the Resource Conservation Zone (RC) Group Home II is allowed
subject to an Administrative CUP.
Group Home II for 7 or more are permitted as a Hearing Examiner CUP in residential zones and
some commercial zones (R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8, RMH, R-10, R-14, RMF, CA, and CD). They are also
permitted in the CV zone, and are permitted subject to an Administrative CUP in the COR zone.
The definitions of Group Home I and II should be revised such that protected classes, due to
handicap or disability, are regulated consistent with state and federal law. Group Homes
should be allowed in residential zones subject to the same regulations as residential uses,
provided that the number of unrelated individuals residing in a Group Home should not exceed
the number defined for a family residing in a dwelling. Group Homes with greater numbers of
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Group Homes Staff Report Page 3 of 4 September 20, 2017
individuals or Group Homes for individuals not disabled or handicapped, should require greater
review including the possibility of a Conditional Use Permit.
Adult Family Homes
Adult Family Home are listed as a separate use in the Zoning Use Table under “Other
Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations”. An Adult Family Home is defined in the RMC as a
state-licensed facility providing personal care, room and board to more than one person, but
not more than 4 adults, not related by blood or marriage to the person(s) providing the service.
A maximum of six (6) adults may be permitted if the Washington State Department of Social
and Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and the home and provider are
capable of meeting standards and qualifications as provided for in chapters 70.128 RCW and
388-76 WAC.
Adult Family Homes are permitted in residential zones (RC, R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8, RMH, R-10, R-14,
and RMF) and the CV Zone, and the CD zone.
Staff recommends reviewing all zones to ensure that Adult Family Homes are permitted where
residential uses are allowed.
Congregate Residence
Congregate Residence is defined in RMC 4-11 as a building or portion that contains facilities for
living, sleeping and sanitation and may include facilities for eating and cooking for occupancy
for other than a family. This may include a boarding house, but does not include Group Home I
or II, convalescent center, jail, hotel, motel, or secure community transition facility.
Congregate residences are listed as a use in the Zoning Use Table, also under “Other Residential,
Lodging and Home Occupations” and are permitted in the CV and CD Zones, and subject to an
Administrative CUP in the R-14 Zone.
Staff recommends revising the definition of Congregate Residence to clarify that it does not
allow micro-housing. In addition, all zones should be reviewed to determine whether
Congregate Residences is an appropriate use.
Proposed Amendments to Code
Per the applicable federal and state laws as clarified by the courts, Group Homes with
protected classes of individuals must be subject to the same restrictions that other residential
uses are subject to. Therefore, if 4 unrelated individuals are termed a “family”, then a group
home with 4 unrelated individuals must be permitted in a residential zones and cannot be held
to a more restrictive standard. In other words, the City cannot require a CUP for a group home
if other residential uses in that zone do not also require a CUP.
While case law requires that reasonable accommodations be made to allow for group homes,
the courts do recognize that valid health and safety concerns can and must be considered. For
example, a proposal for a 95-bed complex in a single family residential area is not the same as a
6-bed facility. If the proposal would result in more impacts (traffic, noise, etc.) than a single
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Group Homes Staff Report Page 4 of 4 September 20, 2017
family home, then a city can reasonably require a CUP. A city may prevent the clustering of
group homes if such clustering would alter the character of the neighborhood and not be in the
‘best interests’ of handicapped residents. In the absence of a significant concentration of
disabled individuals within a specific area, the courts will likely invalidate spacing requirements
if no reasonable accommodation is provided to handicapped individuals.
Staff recommends review and revision of Renton Municipal Code to permit Group Homes in
conformance with applicable laws.
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code to update definitions for Group Homes, Adult Family Homes,
and Congregate Residences as needed to be compliant with federal and state law. Revise the
Zoning Use Table to allow Group Homes in residential zones consistent with federal and state
law. Review the Zoning Land Use Table to consider those zones that are appropriate for Group
Homes, Adult Family Homes, and Congregate Residences.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as
envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Objectives of the Plan remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The revisions to the code would not have an effect on the cost of developing land and/or
housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
GROUPHOMESPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
What is a group home?•Private residence for people who cannot live with their families. •Children/young people•Adults•SeniorsGROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Examples:•Group Home I - Half-way house, substance abuse recovery homeGROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Examples:•Group Home II - Protective residenceGROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Sale/Rental of housing to handicapped individuals is protected by law•Federal Fair Housing Act•Washington Housing PolicyGROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Case Law:•Must allow same number of unrelated individuals as in single family neighborhoods•Any conditions must be legitimate and non‐discriminatory•GROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Adult Family Home •State‐licensed facility providing personal care, room& board •Up to 4 non‐related adults; with DSHS approval can be up to 6 non‐related adults GROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Adult Family Home •Permitted in all areas zoned for residential or commercial purposes (RCW 70.128.140)GROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Congregate Residence •Building containing facilities for living, sleeping & sanitation, and may include facilities for eating and cooking for other than a family. GROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Congregate Residence •Boarding house, dormitory, fraternity, sorority, independent living •At least one communal meal per day•Offers services & activitiesGROUPHOMES-BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Current Code•Group Home I permitted in CA and CD with CUPGROUPHOMES–BACKGROUNDAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Current Code•Group Home II (6 or less) permitted in residential and some commercial zones•Group Home II ( 7 or more) permitted in residential and some commercial with CUPGROUPHOMES–CURRENTCODEAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•Reconcile Group Home size limits with definition of ‘family’•Review zoning for all group homes•Review land use table to ensure Adult Family Homes allowed in all commercial and residential zones•Review Congregate Care GROUPHOMES–IDENTIFIEDISSUESAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Page 1 of 3
Title IV Text Amendment Exemptions
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: September 20, 2017
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: For purely procedural and administrative amendments, Staff proposes an
exemption from the standard process of amending Renton Municipal Code (RMC). “Procedural” or
“administrative” matters are those that relate to procedures, processes, or submittal requirements (e.g.,
time limits for applications and appeals, what forms must be used, how applications must be
processed). The proposed exemption would allow ordinances, limited to the scope of procedural and
administrative amendments, to be advanced directly for Council approval.
Background: The process to amend RMC typically requires staff to:
1. Create an agenda bill;
2. At a Council meeting, request Council to refer the proposed amendments to a Council
Committee for discussion;
3. Prepare a staff report and schedule a meeting with the Council Committee;
4. Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission briefing;
5. Prepare a staff report and presentation for the Planning Commission and present;
6. Send notice of amendments to the Washington Department of Commerce at least 60 days prior
to first reading;
7. Schedule a meeting with the Council Committee and provide a recap of the briefing to the
Planning Commission;
8. Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission public hearing;
9. Conduct a public hearing with the Planning Commission;
10. Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission meeting to receive deliberations and
recommendations;
11. Prepare a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Report;
12. Schedule and present the SEPA Report to the City’s Environmental Review Committee;
13. Hold a Planning Commission meeting to receive deliberations and recommendations;
14. Schedule a meeting, prepare a Council Committee report, and present for Committee
concurrence;
15. Send the proposed code changes to the City Attorney for legal review;
16. Work with the City Attorney to address any issues;
17. Present an ordinance for first reading at a Council meeting;
18. Present the ordinance for second reading at a Council meeting; and
19. Publish the ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM #2. g)
Title IV Text Amendment Exemptions Page 2 of 3 September 20, 2017
Even with an expedited timeframe where staff is able to reach consensus with the Council Committee,
Planning Commission, other staff, and the City Attorney at each step, and therefore be able to
immediately schedule subsequent meetings, provide notice, and prepare materials, the process to
codify amendments to RMC requires a minimum of three months, but often it consumes anywhere from
five to six months.
Code Interpretations offer the Administrator the ability to amend RMC, but the scope of changes is
limited to the extent necessary to correct contradictory or ambiguous text. Code Interpretations require
staff resources and a minimum of one month before they become effective; nonetheless, in order to
codify the Interpretation it must be go through the legislative process outlined above.
At times there are opportunities to amend procedural or administrative provisions of RMC in ways that
improve procedures, processes, applications, or that simply result in a more efficient use of City
resources (e.g., allowing administrative review of Final Plats would reduce staff time, reduce costs of the
applicant and City, and reduce the timeline for recording Final Plats).
Procedural or administrative amendments would be distinguished from substantive changes, which
relate to regulations that define or limit what can be done in terms of conduct, use, development, or
action (e.g., what use may be made of land, what requirements apply to development, what public
infrastructure may be required of certain developments).
Staff also proposes to enable the City Clerk to make necessary corrections, upon approval of the City
Attorney, to ordinances, including the correction of clerical errors; references to RMC or to other local,
state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; ordinance numbering and section/subsection
numbering; formatting, or the construct of RMC when such changes are not substantive. By enabling
these types of corrections without the need for an ordinance, the Development Regulations of Title IV
can be readily corrected or improved, which will likely result in a more user-friendly code.
Staff Recommendation: Amend code to allow purely administrative or procedural Title IV amendments
to be advanced directly to City Council, and allow the City Clerk to make necessary corrections, upon
approval of the City Attorney, to ordinances, including the correction of clerical errors; references to
RMC or to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; ordinance numbering and
section/subsection numbering; formatting, or the construct of RMC when such changes are not
substantive.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. g)
Title IV Text Amendment Exemptions Page 3 of 3 September 20, 2017
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. g)
TITLEIV TEXTAMENDMENTEXEMPTIONSPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #2. g)
1.Create an agenda bill;2.At a Council meeting, request Council to refer the proposed amendments to a Council Committee for discussion;3.Prepare a staff report and schedule a meeting with the Council Committee;4.Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission briefing;5.Prepare a staff report and presentation for the Planning Commission and present;6.Send notice of amendments to the Washington Department of Commerce at least 60 days prior to first reading;7.Schedule a meeting with the Council Committee and provide a recap of the briefing to the Planning Commission;8.Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission public hearing;9.Conduct a public hearing with the Planning Commission;10.Schedule and provide notice of a Planning Commission meeting to receive deliberations and recommendations;11.Prepare a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Report;LEGISLATIVEPROCESS TOAMENDTITLEIV, DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONSAGENDA ITEM #2. g)
12.Schedule and present the SEPA Report to the City’s Environmental Review Committee;13.Hold a Planning Commission meeting to receive deliberations and recommendations;14.Schedule a meeting, prepare a Council Committee report, and present for Committee concurrence;15.Send the proposed code changes to the City Attorney for legal review;16.Work with the City Attorney to address any issues;17.Present an ordinance for first reading at a Council meeting; 18.Present the ordinance for second reading at a Council meeting; and19.Publish the ordinance.Minimum timeframe: 3 monthsTypical Timeframe: 5-6 monthsLEGISLATIVEPROCESS TOAMENDTITLEIV, DEVELOPMENTREGULATIONSAGENDA ITEM #2. g)
ADMINISTRATIVECODEINTERPRETATIONS1.Scope of changes is limited to the extent necessary to correct contradictory or ambiguous text;2.Code Interpretations require staff resources and a minimum of one month before they become effective; and3.In order to codify the Interpretation it must be go through the legislative process outlined in the previous slides.AGENDA ITEM #2. g)
•Staff proposes an exemption from the standard process of amending Renton Municipal Code (RMC) for purely procedural and administrative amendments.•“Procedural” or “administrative” matters are those that relate to procedures, processes, or submittal requirements (e.g., time limits for applications and appeals, what forms must be used, how applications must be processed). •The proposed exemption would allow ordinances, limited to the scope of procedural and administrative amendments, to be advanced directly for Council consideration. •Staff also proposes to enable the City Clerk to make necessary corrections, upon approval of the City Attorney, to ordinances, including:the correction of clerical errors; references to RMC or to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering; formatting, or the construct of RMC when such changes are not substantive. STAFFRECOMMENDATIONAGENDA ITEM #2. g)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #2. g)
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Supervised Injection Facilities
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: September 20, 2017
Requestor: City Council
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: On August 14, 2017, the Renton City Council adopted Resolution 4317,
which expressed their opposition to supervised injection facilities within the City of Renton and
its Potential Annexation Areas. The proposed ordinance to amend Title IV would result in the
prohibition of such facilities through the City’s zoning regulations.
Background: The King County Board of Health voted unanimously in January to endorse the
Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force Final Report and Recommendations calling
on local and state actors to implement the public health policies outlined in the report,
including the establishment of at least two pilot safe injection facilities, for supervised injection
of heroin and other illegal drugs. The King County Board of Health has recommended one of the
supervised injection facilities to be within Seattle and another outside of its boundaries.
Staff Recommendation: Amend code to prohibit supervised injection facilities via Title IV
zoning regulations.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Not applicable
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Supervised Injection Facilities Page 2 of 2 September 20, 2017
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Not applicable
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
SUPERVISEDINJECTIONFACILITIESPlanning & Development CommitteeOctober 12, 2017AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1.The King County Board of Health voted unanimously in January to endorse the Heroin and Prescription Opiate Addiction Task Force Final Report and Recommendations calling on local and state actors to implement the public health policies outlined in the report, including the establishment of at least two pilot safe injection facilities, for supervised injection of heroin and other illegal drugs. 2.The King County Board of Health has recommended one of the supervised injection facilities to be within Seattle and another outside of its boundaries.3.On August 14, 2017, the Renton City Council adopted Resolution 4317, which expressed their opposition to supervised injection facilities within the City of Renton and its Potential Annexation Areas. 4.The proposed ordinance to amend Title IV would result in the prohibition of such facilities through the City’s zoning regulations. PROPOSEDBAN OFSUPERVISEDINJECTIONFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Public Hearing:October 18, 2017NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AB - 1999
City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Oct 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Renton Housing Authority - NEPA Environmental Review Fee Waiver
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Matt Herrera, Senior Planner
EXT.: 6593
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Renton Housing Authority receives funding from the federal government for various functions of their
property holdings. The funding requires the housing authority to prepare environmental documents to comply
with NEPA regulations even if no construction or improvements to the property are proposed. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has authorized the City to serve as the Responsible
Entity for purposes of compliance with NEPA regulations within the City’s boundaries. The City’s
Environmental Review Committee has been designated the authority to provide the certifications required of
the Responsible Entity under NEPA.
RHA has requested the City waive environmental review fees, currently assessed at $1,500.00, for non-project federal
actions. This fee is intended to be for State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review that is associated with building and
construction improvements. RHA has contracted with a local planning consultant to prepare all environmental
documentation needed to comply with NEPA. This documentation is then provided to the City’s Environmental
Review Committee for signatures. No technical review of the documentation is required as it is limited in
scope to federal funding and often with no associated building or construction.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a blanket fee waiver for RHA non-project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) certifications
required by the federal government.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
I S S U E P A P E R
DATE:September 25, 2017
TO:Armondo Pavone, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C.E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator x6588
STAFF CONTACT:Matt Herrera, Senior Planner X6593
SUBJECT:NEPA Environmental Review Fee Waiver – Renton Housing
Authority
ISSUE:
Should the City waive environmental review fees, currently assessed at $1,500.00 per
determination, for Renton Housing Authority (RHA) non-project federal actions?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a blanket fee waiver for RHA non-project National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) certifications required by the federal government.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
RHA receives funding from the federal government for various functions of their
property holdings. The funding requires the housing authority to prepare environmental
documents to comply with NEPA regulations even if no construction or improvements
to the property are proposed. A recent example involves the existing Houser Terrace
Senior Housing property located in the Sunset Highlands neighborhood. In order for RHA
to accept housing vouchers that would subsidize rents for veterans in the existing
development, the housing authority was required to process federal environmental
documents.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has authorized the City to
serve as the Responsible Entity for purposes of compliance with NEPA regulations within
the City’s boundaries. The City’s Environmental Review Committee has been designated
the authority to provide the certifications required of the Responsible Entity under
NEPA.
RHA has contracted with a local planning consultant to prepare all environmental
documentation needed to comply with NEPA. This documentation is then provided to
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Armondo Pavone, Council President
Page 2 of 2
September 25, 2017
the City’s Environmental Review Committee for signatures. No technical review of the
documentation is required as it is limited in scope to federal funding and often with no
associated building or construction.
The City’s current environmental review fee is $1,500.00 and is intended to be for State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review that is associated with building and construction
improvements whereas the majority of NEPA reviews for RHA is limited to federal
funding for programmatic actions. City staff time is limited to forwarding documents to
the Environmental Review Committee for signatures as RHA’s consultant has prepared
all the necessary paperwork.
CONCLUSION:
Certification of NEPA documents for RHA properties are limited in scope and City
resources. The review is often for projects located in the Sunset Highlands where the
City has partnered with RHA to redevelop and provide affordable housing, updated
infrastructure, and foster economic development to the area. The City’s NEPA
document processing is a component of that partnership as it expedites the process for
RHA to provide timely housing resources to the community. The waiver of the
environmental review fees associated with the NEPA review would further support
affordable housing and RHA’s mission to the community.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
RENTONHOUSINGAUTHORITY1I’P0.Box2316•Renton,WA98056-0316(!“.www.rentonhousing.orgOffice425/226-1850•Fax425/271-8319TDD1-800-833-6388October5th2017Mr.ChipVincent,CommunityandEconomicDevelopmentAdministratorCityofRenton1055S.GradyWayRenton,WA98057Re:EnvironmentalfeeWaiverRequestDearMr.Vincent:TheRentonHousingAuthority(RHA)respectfullyrequestsablanketwaiverofNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)EnvironmentalReviewFeeswhentherearenobuildingorsitedevelopmentpermitsassociatedwiththereview.RI-IAwouldcontinuetoprepareallnecessarydocumentsforroutinganddeliverytotheCity’sEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeforResponsibleEntitycertification,resultinginasignificantreductioninCitystaffresourcesneededforthereviews.RI-IArequestswaiverofthefeesforfederalprogrammaticdocumentprocessinginaffordablehousingrentalprojectsthatservicemostlyorentirelylow-incomehouseholds.RelieffromthesefeesenablesRHAtoplaceitsresourcesinthebestpossiblepositiontomeetRF{A’sandtheCity’smutualhousingobjectives.WeappreciateyourongoingsupportandassistancewithouraffordablehousingeffortswithintheCityofRenton.Sincerely,ExecutiveDirorCc:RHABoardofCommissionersAGENDA ITEM #5. a)