HomeMy WebLinkAbout5977ORDINANCE NO. 5 9 7 7
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 19.06
TO THE AUBURN CITY CODE, AUTHORIZING THE
COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE PROTECTION
FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn (the "Council') finds that
development activity in the City of Auburn will create additional demand and
need for fire protection facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to
require new growth and development within the City of Auburn to pay a
proportionate share of the cost of new facilities to serve such new growth and
development through the assessment of impact fees; and
WHEREAS, impact fees assessed pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW must be
based upon a showing that new development activity creates additional demand
and need for fire protection facilities, that the impact fees do not exceed a
proportionate share of the costs of such additional fire protection facilities, and
that the fees are spent for facilities reasonably related to the new development;
and
WHEREAS, impact fees may be collected and spent for fire protection
facilities that are included within a capital facilities plan element of a
comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to
impose impact fees for system improvement costs previously incurred by the City
of Auburn to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the
previously constructed improvements; and
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Pagel
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has conducted a study documenting the
formulas and procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on fire
protection facilities, and has prepared a technical report which serves as the
basis for the actions taken by the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council hereby incorporates the following study into this
ordinance by reference: "Impact Fees for Fire Protection Facilities in Auburn,
Washington," dated February 16, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN DO
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION ONE CREATION OF NEW CHAPTER TO CITY CODE: A
new Chapter 19.06 of the Auburn City Code is hereby created, providing for the
collection of impact fees for fire protection facilities, to read as follows:
Chapter 19.06
Fire Impact Fee
Sections:
19.06.010 Findings and authority.
19.06.020 Definitions.
19.06.030 Reserved.
19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees.
19.06.050 Independent fee calculations.
19.06.060 Credits and adjustments.
19.06.070 Exemptions.
19.06.080 Appeals.
19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection.
19.06.100 Refunds.
19.06.110. Use of funds.
19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees.
19.06.130 Miscellaneous provisions.
19.06.010 Findings and authority.
The council of the city of Auburn (the "council") hereby finds and
determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new
residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial development, in the city of
Auburn will create additional demand and need for fire protection facilities in the
city of Auburn, and the council finds that new growth and development should
pay a proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities needed to serve
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 2
the new growth and development. The city of Auburn has conducted a study
documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on
fire protection facilities. This study has contributed to the rates as established in
the fee schedule of the city of Auburn. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02
RCW, the council adopts this chapter to assess impact fees for fire protection
facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to
carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program.
19.06.020 Definitions.
The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the
purposes of this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms
otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090, or
given their usual and customary meaning.
A. "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW
as now in existence or as hereafter amended.
B. "Building permit" for the purposes of this chapter only, means an
official document or certification which is issued by the city and which authorizes
the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling,
rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. In
the case of increased impacts on fire protection facilities caused by a change in
use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, and where no building
permit is required, the term "building permit" shall specifically include business
registrations.
C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of
the city's comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and
such plan as amended.
D. "City" means the city of Auburn.
E. "Council" means the city council of the city of Auburn.
F. "Department" means the department of planning and community
development.
G. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a
building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any
change in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for fire
protection facilities.
H. "Director" means the director of the department of planning and
community development or the director's designee.
I. "Downtown plan area" means the study area as identified and
adopted in the City of Auburn Downtown Plan dated May 2001 that is defined by
the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad on the west and State Route 18 on
the south. The eastern boundary is defined as F Street SE from State Route 18
to East Main Street, East Main Street from F Street SE to E Street SE, and E
Street NE from East Main Street to 4th Street NE. The northern boundary is
defined as 2nd Street NW from the Interurban Trail to D Street NW, 3rd Street
NW/NE from D Street NW to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street NE from Auburn
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 3
Avenue to E Street NE. For the purposes of this chapter, the downtown plan
boundary has been slightly modified to avoid bisecting properties.
J. "Dwelling unit" means a building, or portion thereof, designed for
residential occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged,
designed or used as living quarters for one family only.
K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside or otherwise earmark,
the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations or other
liabilities incurred for fire protection facilities.
L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated
association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any
governmental entity commencing a land development activity which creates the
demand for additional fire protection facilities, and which requires the issuance of
a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit.
M. "Fire protection facilities" means fire trucks and apparatus, and fire
stations, and any furnishings and equipment that are used with fire trucks and
apparatus or fire stations and which can be capitalized.
N. "Fire protection project improvements" mean site improvements
and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular
development or users of the project, and are not fire protection system
improvements. No fire protection improvement or facility included in a capital
facilities plan approved by the council shall be considered a fire protection project
improvement.
O. "Fire protection system improvements" means fire protection
facilities that are included in the city of Auburn's capital facilities plan and are
designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in
contrast to fire protection project improvements.
P. "Hearing examiner" means the examiner who acts on behalf of the
council in considering and applying land use regulatory codes as provided under
Chapter 18.66 ACC. Where appropriate, "hearing examiner" also refers to the
office of the hearing examiner.
Q. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of
Auburn on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of
granting development approval in order to pay for the fire protection facilities
needed to serve new growth and development.
R. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account established
for the fire protection facilities impact fees collected. The account shall be
established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090, and comply with the requirements of
RCW 82.02.070.
S. "Independent fee calculation" means the fire protection impact
calculation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee
other than by the use of the attached schedules.
T. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the
State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool, if not otherwise
defined.
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 4
U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property; provided, that
if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the
purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property.
V. "State" means the state of Washington.
19.06.030 Reserved.
19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees.
A. Effective January 1, 2006, the city shall collect impact fees, based
on the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, from any applicant seeking
development approval from the city for any development activity within the city.
B. The amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an
applicant submits a complete application for a building permit, using the impact
fee schedules then in effect, or pursuant to an independent fee calculation
accepted by the director pursuant to ACC 19.06.050, and adjusted for any credits
pursuant to ACC 19.06.060.
C. Payment of impact fees shall be made by the feepayer at the time
the building permit is issued for each unit in the development. The amount to be
paid shall not be increased for any applicant that submitted a complete
application for the building permit before the city established the impact fee rates.
D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of
the complete building permit application pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 shall submit,
along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or
certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 setting forth the
dollar amount of the credit awarded. Impact fees, as determined after the
application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the feepayer at the time
the building permit is issued.
E. The department shall not issue a building permit unless and until
the impact fees have been paid or credit(s) awarded.
19.06.050 Independent fee calculations.
A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee
amounts set forth in the attached schedule accurately describes or captures the
impacts of the new development, the applicant shall conduct an independent fee
calculation and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific
development based on those calculations, once accepted by the city.
B. Feepayers may opt not to have the impact fees determined
according to the attached schedule. Such feepayers shall prepare and submit to
the director an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which
a building permit is sought. The documentation submitted shall show the basis
upon which the independent fee calculation was made.
C. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall be charged for each
independent fee calculation. The fee shall be deposited with the city to pay for
city review of the independent fee calculation upon submittal of the documented
independent fee study.
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 5
D. After the city completes its review, the actual fees and expenses
will be determined and the cash deposit shall be adjusted to provide for a refund
by the city or additional payment by the feepayer.
E. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the
attached schedule are valid, the director shall consider the documentation
submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation
which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in
the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different
documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact
fees on a case-by-case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the
specific characteristics of the development, and/or where adjustment is deemed
by the director to be appropriate based on principles of fairness under the
circumstances of the case.
F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may
be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner subject to the procedures set
forth in ACC 19.06.080.
19.06.060 Credits and adjustments.
A. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for fire protection
impact fees be awarded to him/her for fire protection system improvement
projects provided by the feepayer in excess of the standard requirements for the
feepayer's development if the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed
are identified as fire protection system improvements that provide capacity to
serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or the director, at his/her discretion,
makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the
fire protection goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan.
B. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine
the value of dedicated land by using available documentation or selecting an
appraiser from a list of independent appraisers maintained by the department to
determine the value of the land being dedicated. The value of improvements will
be determined through documentation submitted by the feepayer.
C. The feepayer shall pay the cost of the appraisal and shall deposit
on account the estimated cost of the appraisal as determined by the city at the
time the feepayer requests consideration for a credit.
D. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant
with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason
for the credit, where applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the
legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to
which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate
copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the
letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the
impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and
return such document within 60 days shall nullify the credit.
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 6
E. Any claim for credit must be made no later than the time of
application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed
waived.
F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall
be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080.
G. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW
82.02.060, the fee rate in the fee schedule has been reasonably adjusted for
other revenue sources which are earmarked for, or proratable to, funding fire
protection facilities.
19.06.070 Exemptions.
A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of fire protection
impact fees:
1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size
and use at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within twelve (12)
months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure.
2. Alterations or expansion or enlargement or remodeling or
rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units
are created and the use is not changed.
3. Alterations of an existing non-residential structure that does not
expand the useable space and that does not involve a change in use.
4. Miscellaneous improvements, including but not limited to fences,
walls, swimming pools, and signs.
5. Demolition or moving of a structure.
6. Any building permit application that has been submitted to the
department before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the first effective date of
the fire protection impact fee rate schedule and subsequently determined to be a
complete application by the city.
7. All development activity within the "downtown plan area" as defined
in ACC 19.06.020(1); provided, that this exemption shall sunset on December 31,
2006, unless otherwise extended by the city council. In order to comply with
RCW 8.02.060(2), impact fees for development activity in the downtown plan
area shall be paid for with public funds other than from impact fee accounts
during the exemption period set forth herein.
B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular
development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section.
Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set
forth in ACC 19.06.080 below.
19.06.080 Appeals.
A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter
under protest in order to obtain a building permit. Appeals regarding the impact
fees imposed on any development activity may only be made by the feepayer of
the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted
under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 7
been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined
by the director without first paying the fees, providing the applicant is willing to
provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in accordance with the
requirements of ACC 17.08.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit.
Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the
director without first paying the fees provided the applicant is willing to postpone
issuance of the building permit until after the appeal process when the revised
final fee is known.
B. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the
impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or
the director's decision with respect to the independent fee calculation, or any
other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this
chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner.
C. Appeals shall be taken within ten (10) days of the director's
issuance of a written determination by filing with the office of the hearing
examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof, and depositing the
necessary fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of
administrative decisions. The director shall transmit to the office of the hearing
examiner all papers constituting the record for the determination, including,
where appropriate, the independent fee calculation.
D. The hearing examiner shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal,
give notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same as provided in Chapter
18.66 ACC. At the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or
attorney.
E. The hearing examiner is authorized to make findings of fact
regarding the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the
availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or applicability of an
independent fee calculation. The decision of the Hearing examiner shall be final,
except as provided in subsection (G) of this section.
F. The hearing examiner may, so long as such action is in
conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in
part, or may modify the determinations of the director with respect to the amount
of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded upon a determination that it is
proper to do so based on principles of fairness, and may make such order,
requirements, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end
shall have the powers which have been granted to the director by this chapter.
G. Any feepayer aggrieved by any decision of the office of the hearing
examiner may appeal the hearing examiner's final decision as provided in
Chapter 18.66 ACC.
19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection.
A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in
special interest-bearing accounts. The fees received shall be prudently invested
in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the city.
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 8
B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the
fees collected pursuant to this chapter: the fire protection facilities impact fee
account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used in accordance
with the provisions of ACC 19.06.110. Interest earned on the fees shall be
retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees
were collected.
C. On an annual basis, the financial director shall provide a report to
the council on the fire protection impact fee account showing the source and
amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the fire protection
system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees.
D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six years of
receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings an extraordinary and
compelling reason or reasons for the delay.
19.06.100 Refunds.
A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six
years of when the fees were paid, or where extraordinary or compelling reasons
exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090, the
current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive
a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended
or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a
first in, first out basis.
B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited
with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such
claimants. A potential claimant or claimant must be the owner of the property.
C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written
request for a refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right
to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later.
D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been
made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on
the appropriate fire protection facilities.
E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest
earned on the impact fees by the city.
F. If and when the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the
fire protection impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from
any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be
refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee
requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination
and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two
times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known
address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a
period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained
by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate fire protection facilities.
This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or
unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated.
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 9
G. The city shall also refund to the developer of property for which
impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on the
impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed
did not occur.
19.06.110. Use of funds.
A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees:
1. Shall be used for fire protection system improvements that will
reasonably benefit the new development; and
2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in fire protection
facilities serving existing developments; and
3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations.
B. As a general guideline, fire protection impact fees may be used for
any fire protection system improvements which could otherwise be funded by a
bond issue of the city.
C. Fire protection facilities impact fees may be spent for fire protection
system improvements, including but not limited to fire trucks, apparatus, and fire
stations, including planning, land acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-
site improvements including mitigation, construction, engineering, architectural,
permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or
mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized.
D. Impact fees may be used to recoup fire protection system
improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that new growth
and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or
incurred costs.
E. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have
been issued for the advanced provision of fire protection system improvements
for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt
service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities
or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section
and are used to serve the new development.
19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees.
A. The fee rate schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of
Auburn shall be reviewed by the council no later than two years after the effective
date of the attached fee rate schedule, and no more than every two years
thereafter.
B. The fee schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn
shall be reviewed by the council as it may deem necessary and appropriate in
conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the
city's comprehensive plan.
19.06.130 Miscellaneous provisions.
A. Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude
the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 10
mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to
the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the
environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval
process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided
that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of RCW
82.02.050(1) (c) .
B. Captions. The chapter and section captions used in this chapter are
for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction
of any of the provisions of this chapter.
C. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is found to be invalid or
unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of any other section of this chapter.
SECTION TWO IMPLEMENTATION: The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directives of this legislation.
SECTION THREE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR INVALIDITY: If any
section, subsection, clause, phrase, or sentence of this Ordinance, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality
of the remaining portions of this ordinance, as it is being hereby expressly
declared that this ordinance and each section, subsection, clause, phrase, or
sentence, hereof would have been prepared, proposed, adopted, and approved
and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection,
clause, phrase, or sentence, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION FOUR EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall take effect
and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage, approval, and
publication, as provided by law, and on January 1, 2006.
INTRODUCED: DEC 19 2005
DEC 19 20M
PASSED:
PR DEC 19 2005
) (a::::�
PETER B. LEWIS, Mayor
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 11
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
PUBLISHED:�3-
-------------------
Ordinance No. 5977
December 13, 2005
Page 12
IMPACT FEES
FOR
FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES
IN
AUBURN, WASHINGTON
Henderson
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1
2. CAPITAL COST PER FIRE INCIDENT.............................................................8
3. ANNUAL COST OF FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ........................................ 15
4. CAPITAL COST PER EMS INCIDENT............................................................21
5. ANNUAL COST OF EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ........................................ 24
6. IMPACT FEE PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT .................................................. 30
APPENDIX A: DEFICIENCIES, RESERVE CAPACITY AND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
FACILITIES................................................................................................. 34
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: FIRE PROTECTION APPARATUS INVENTORY .........................................
TABLE 2: ANNUALIZED COST OF ENGINE/PUMPER.............................................
TABLE 3: ANNUALIZED COST OF TELESQUIRT...................................................
TABLE 4: ANNUALIZED COST OF AID VEHICLE .................................................
TABLE 5: COST PER APPARATUS PER RESPONSE ..................................................
TABLE 6: ANNUAL FIRE AND EMS INCIDENTS ..................................................
TABLE 7: FIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ...............................
TABLE 8: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER FIRE INCIDENT ......................................
TABLE 9: FIRE PROTECTION STATION INVENTORY ............................................
TABLE 10: ANNUALIZED STATION COST PER SQUARE FOOT ................................
TABLE 11: STATION SQUARE FEET PER FIRE AND EMS INCIDENT ........................
TABLE 12: STATION COST PER FIRE AND EMS INCIDENT ....................................
TABLE 13: TOTAL CAPITAL COST PER INCIDENT ................................................
TABLE 14: FIRE INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ...........................................
TABLE 15: TRAFFIC RELATED FIRE INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES) ...........
TABLE 16: TOTAL ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ..................................
TABLE 17: ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ............................................
TABLE 18: ANNUAL COST OF FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ................................
TABLE 19: EMS INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS ..............................
TABLE 20: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER EMS INCIDENT ....................................
TABLE 21: TOTAL CAPITAL COST PER EMS INCIDENT ........................................
TABLE 22: EMS INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES ..........................................
TABLE 23: TRAFFIC RELATED EMS INCIDENTS (ALLOCATED TO LAND USES) ..........
TABLE 24: TOTAL ANNUAL EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE .................................
TABLE 25: ANNUAL EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ...........................................
TABLE 26: ANNUAL COST OF EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ..............................
TABLE 27: ANNUAL COST OF FIRE AND EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ................
TABLE 28: TOTAL COST OF FIRE AND EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE ...................,
TABLE 29: IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE.............................................................
4
8
9
9
.. 10
.. 10
.. 11
.. 11
.. 12
...12
-13
... 13
... 14
-16
...17
...18
... 19
... 20
... 22
... 22
... 23
... 25
... 26
... 27
... 28
... 29
...31
... 32
... 33
1. INTRODUCTION
This study of impact fees for fire protection facilities for Auburn, Washington presents
the methodology, summarizes the data, and explains the calculation of the fees. The methodology is
designed to comply with the requirements of Washington law. This introduction describes the
basis for fire protection impact fees, including:
• Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
• Statutory Basis For Impact Fees
• Responsibility for Public Facilities
• Need for Additional Fire Protection Facilities
• Determining the Benefit of Fire Protection Facilities to Development
• Data Sources and Calculation
Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
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
the new development. New development is synonymous with "growth."
Local governments charge impact fees on either of two bases.
• First, as a matter of policy and legislative discretion, they may want new development to
pay the full cost of its share of new public facilities because that portion of the facilities
would not be needed except to serve the new development. In this case, the new
development is required to pay for all the cost of its share of new public facilities.
• Second, local governments may use other sources of revenue to pay for the new public
facilities that are required to serve new development. If, however, such revenues are not
sufficient to cover the entire costs of new facilities necessitated by new development, the
new development may be required to pay an impact fee in an amount equal to the
difference between the total cost and the other sources of revenue.
There are many kinds of "public facilities" that are needed by new development, including
fire protection facilities, parks, schools, roads, water and sewer plants, libraries, and other
government facilities. This study covers fire protection facilities in the City of Auburn, Washington.
Impact fees for fire protection facilities can be charged to all residential and non-residential
development within the City of Auburn.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 1
Statutory Basis For Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact
fees. The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several important differences between impact
fees and SEPA mitigations. Two aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the
ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e., that provide
service to the community at large) as opposed to "project improvements" (which are "on-site" and
provide service for a particular development), and 2) the ability to charge small-scale development
their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments.
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 streets and roads;
2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire
protection facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district). RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4),
and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on system improvements (which are typically outside the
PP 11P ( f typically P and y9 P
development),as o opposed to "project im improvements" which are t icall provided b the developer
on-site within the development). RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) a ( )
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(3)(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(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements
that are reasonably related to the new development. 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(3)(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
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 2
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 and are required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
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 exemptions must be
paid from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
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(5). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee
calculations. RCW 82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a
refund of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend the impact fee payments within 6
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 with 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(7), 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(7)) subject to the proportionate share
limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend the money
on CFP projects within 6 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW
82.02.070(1)-(3)
Responsibility for Public Facilities
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 Auburn is legally and
financially responsible for the fire protection facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction.
The City of Auburn Fire Department is the sole provider of fire protection within the City of
Auburn. In addition to fire protection the Fire Department is responsible for emergency medical
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 3
service response and transport, hazardous material mitigation, technical rescue response, disaster
services and fire prevention activities. King County Medic One provides Advanced Life Support
(ALS) services to the City.
The City of Auburn apparatus inventory includes 3 stations, 3 primary response
Engines/Pumpers, 1 65 foot Telesquirt that can provide an elevated water stream as well as rescue
capabilities, and 2 Basic Life Support (BLS) aid vehicles. A summary inventory of the City's
primary response units is shown in Table 1 along with the annual emergency responses the 6
primary response units made.
The average annual responses for one of each type of fire and EMS unit is also shown in
Table 1. The average number of emergency responses per type of unit is calculated by dividing the
number of annual emergency runs by the number of units making those runs. In many cases, more
than one apparatus is dispatched to an emergency incident. The number and type of apparatus
dispatched to each incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
In addition to the primary response apparatus, the City of Auburn Fire Department has 4
reserve apparatus (2 Engine/Pumpers and 2 Aid Vehicles) that are dispatched as needed when a
primary apparatus is out of service for repairs or maintenance. The reserve apparatus are not
routinely dispatched and are excluded from the impact fee analysis because they are not used
frequently enough to have a material effect on the cost of providing fire protection facilities.
Table l: Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory
Need for Additional Fire Protection Facilities
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 and stations, this study
uses the ratio of apparatus to incidents. As greater growth occurs, more incidents occur, therefore
more apparatus and stations are needed to maintain standards.
During 2003, the City of Auburn's 6 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
8,661 times to 7,256 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an incident requires that
more than one unit respond). The analysis and text documenting the ratio of each type of apparatus
to fire and EMS incidents are explained in chapters 2 and 4. The analysis of needed fire protection
facilities must comply with the statutory requirements of identifying existing deficiency, reserve
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 4
Average
Primary
Annual
Emergency
Response
Emergency
Responses
Type of Apparatus
Apparatus
Responses
Per Unit
Engine/Pumpers
3
4,209
1,403
Telesquirt
1
15
15
Aid Vehicles
2
4,437
2,219
Total Primary Response Units
6
8,661
Need for Additional Fire Protection Facilities
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 and stations, this study
uses the ratio of apparatus to incidents. As greater growth occurs, more incidents occur, therefore
more apparatus and stations are needed to maintain standards.
During 2003, the City of Auburn's 6 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
8,661 times to 7,256 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an incident requires that
more than one unit respond). The analysis and text documenting the ratio of each type of apparatus
to fire and EMS incidents are explained in chapters 2 and 4. The analysis of needed fire protection
facilities must comply with the statutory requirements of identifying existing deficiency, reserve
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 4
capacity and new capacity requirements for facilities. Appendix A uses data from the City's Capital
Facilities Plan to show that there is no existing deficiency, and to show the reserve capacity and new
capacity of fire apparatus and stations needed to serve new development.
Determining the Benefit of Fire Protection Facilities to Development
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(3)).
1. 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 be used by 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 (i.e., per call
for service) and applying the cost only to new development when calculating
impact fees.
Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity can be based on
the government's actual cost or the replacement cost of the facility in order to
account for carrying costs of 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 "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 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
and the quality and design of a donated public facility can be required to
conform to adopted local standards for such facilities.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 5
Without such adjustments and credits, the fee -paying development might pay more than its
proportionate share.
2. 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 (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed
benefit). These measures of relatedness are implemented by the following techniques:
Impact fees for fire protection are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit
from) new fire protection facilities. Impact fees are charged to properties which
benefit from new emergency medical services facilities. Fire and EMS facilities
are provided by the City of Auburn to all properties regardless of the type of
use of the property, therefore, the fire protection impact fees are charged to all
residential and non-residential development within the city. Fire protection
impact fee rates are calculated separately for each type of land use.
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee
amounts (i.e., single family dwelling units versus multi family dwelling units,
and each type of commercial land use: retail, office, commercial, industrial).
• Fee -payers can pay a smaller fee if they can demonstrate that their development
will have less impact than is presumed in the calculation of the impact fee
schedule for their classification of property. Such reduced needs must be
permanent and enforceable (i.e., through land use restrictions).
RCW requires one or more service areas as a way of connecting a unit of
development and a fire protection facility. All impact fees paid by new
development in the service area would be required to be spent on new fire
protection facilities in the same service area. The benefits provided by
individual fire protection apparatus are not limited to geographic areas
surrounding each station within the City of Auburn because the apparatus are
frequently called upon to assist with an incident in a different area of the city
when the seriousness of the call suggests a need for additional units or when
backup is requested. These response policies make fire protection facilities
function as a single system, and all properties benefit from improvements to any
part of the system, therefore the fire protection impact fee for each land use
category is calculated, collected, and expended in a single service area covering
all of the City of Auburn.
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures
Two provisions of the law tend to reinforce 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 identifiable projects, the benefit of which can be demonstrated. Second, impact fee revenue must
be expended within 6 years, thus requiring a timeliness to the benefit to the fee -payer.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 6
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begin with the list of projects in the City's Capital
Facilities Plan. The projects in the CFP are analyzed to identify costs attributable to new
development. The costs are calculated per unit of capacity of fire protection facility. The costs per
unit of capacity are applied to the standard for units of capacity per person and per non-residential
square foot (using the same standard for levels of service as is used to develop the projects in the
CFP). The amount of the fee is determined by charging each fee -paying development for the
number of units of demand that it generates. Finally, impact costs are adjusted to reflect payments
of other sources of revenue by the new development.
Data Sources and Calculation
Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees for fire protection facilities in the City of Auburn,
Washington was provided by the City of Auburn unless a different source is specifically cited.
Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in
this study, there will be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a
calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the
spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate 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 differences due to rounding of data that appears
in this study.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 7
2. CAPITAL COST PER FIRE INCIDENT
This chapter identifies the capital cost of fire protection apparatus and stations that are the
basis for emergency responses to fire incidents.
Annual Cost Per Apparatus
The first step in calculating the apparatus cost per emergency incident is to identify and
annualize the cost per type of apparatus. The capital cost per type of 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:
Fire Annual
Apparatus - Useful Life = Cost per
Cost Apparatus
Tables 2 through 4 show the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in
Table 1: Engine/Pumper, Telesquirt, and Aid Vehicles'. Major components of the apparatus are
listed in the first column of the Tables 2 through 4. The apparatus and equipment costs in Tables 2
through 4 represent current costs to purchase a new fully equipped apparatus.
Tables 2 through 4 also show the number of years of useful life of the cost components of
each type of apparatus. The annualized cost is calculated by dividing each component's cost by the
useful life of that component.
Table 2: Annualized Cost of EnginelPumper
Cost Component
Total Cost per
Component
Useful Life of
Component (Years)
Annual Cost
Vehicle (Pierce Quantum)
$ 393,000
10
$ 39,300.00
Communications
10,000
10
1,000.00
Equipment
33,000
10
3,300.00
Total: Vehicle and Equipment
436,000
43,600.00
Auburn's aid vehicles provide basic life support (BLS). King County provides advanced life
support (ALS) services and equipment.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 8
Table 3: Annualized Cost of Telesquirt
Total Cost per Useful Life of
Cost Component Component Component (Years) Annual Cost
Vehicle (Telesquirt) $ 468,000 10 $ 46,800.00
Communications 10,000 10 1,000.00
Equipment 33,000 10 3,300.00
Total: Vehicle and Equipment 511,000 51,100.00
Table 4: Annualized Cost of Aid Vehicle
Total Cost per Useful Life of
Cost Component Component Component (Years) Annual Cost
Vehicle (BLS Aid Vehicle) $ 122,000 5 $ 24,400.00
Communications 10,000 5 2,000.00
Equipment 6,000 5 1,200.00
Total: Vehicle and Equipment 138,000 27,600.00
Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or EMS Incident
The capital cost per fire or EMS incident is calculated for each apparatus by dividing the
annualized cost per apparatus by the total annual incidents (both fire 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.
Annual Cost Annual Responses Annual Cost
Per - Per = Per Apparatus
Apparatus Apparatus Per Response
In Table 5 the cost of each type of apparatus per emergency response is calculated. Table 5
shows the annualized cost of one of each type of apparatus (from Tables 2 through 4) and the
average annual emergency responses for each type of apparatus (from Table 1). 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.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 9
Table 5: Cost per Apparatus per Response
Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The total apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the cost per apparatus
per response by the percent of fire incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation
accounts for the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents. The result of this
calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
Cost Apparatus Percent Total
Per Apparatus x of Fire = Apparatus Cost Per
Per Response Responses Fire Incident
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the annual
number of incidents the Auburn Fire Department responded to. Emergency incidents are separated
into two categories: Fire and EMS. Table 6 lists the annual number of fire and EMS incidents
responded to during 2003.
Table 6: Annual Fire and EMS Incidents
Average
Annual
Type of Incident Responses
Fire 2,114
Emergency Medical Call 5,142
Total Annual Incidents 7,256
The percent of fire responses by each type of apparatus is calculated in Table 7 by dividing
the annual fire responses for each type of apparatus by the total average annual fire incidents from
Table 6. The result of the calculation in Table 7 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each
type of apparatus. For example, Engine/Pumpers provided 2,162 responses to the 2,114 fire
incidents, equaling 102.3% of all fire incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average fire incident involved 1.023 engines/pumpers, therefore the cost of responding to a fire
incident includes 102.3% of the cost of an Engine/Pumper.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 10
Average
Annual
Annual
Responses
Apparatus
Apparatus
Per Fire and
Cost Per
Type Of Apparatus
Cost
EMS Unit
Response
Engine/Pumper
$ 43,600.00
1,403
$ 31.08
Telesquirt
51,100.00
15
3,406.67
Aid Vehicle
27,600.00
2,219
12.44
Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The total apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the cost per apparatus
per response by the percent of fire incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation
accounts for the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents. The result of this
calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
Cost Apparatus Percent Total
Per Apparatus x of Fire = Apparatus Cost Per
Per Response Responses Fire Incident
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the annual
number of incidents the Auburn Fire Department responded to. Emergency incidents are separated
into two categories: Fire and EMS. Table 6 lists the annual number of fire and EMS incidents
responded to during 2003.
Table 6: Annual Fire and EMS Incidents
Average
Annual
Type of Incident Responses
Fire 2,114
Emergency Medical Call 5,142
Total Annual Incidents 7,256
The percent of fire responses by each type of apparatus is calculated in Table 7 by dividing
the annual fire responses for each type of apparatus by the total average annual fire incidents from
Table 6. The result of the calculation in Table 7 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each
type of apparatus. For example, Engine/Pumpers provided 2,162 responses to the 2,114 fire
incidents, equaling 102.3% of all fire incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average fire incident involved 1.023 engines/pumpers, therefore the cost of responding to a fire
incident includes 102.3% of the cost of an Engine/Pumper.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 10
Table 7: Fire Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
Total Annual
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table 8. The
cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 5) is multiplied by the percent of fire
incidents dispatched to (from Table 7) resulting in the total apparatus cost per fire incident.
The "bottom line" in Table 8 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $59.18. In other
words, every fire incident "uses up" $59.18 worth of apparatus.
Table 8: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
Fire
Annual
Percent of
Responses For
Annual
Fire
All
Fire
Incidents
Type Of Apparatus
Apparatus
Incidents
Dispatched To
Engine/Pumper
2,162
Dispatched To
102.3%
Telesquirt
15
102.3%
0.7%
Aid Vehicle
548
0.7%
25.9%
Total
2,725
2,114
3.22
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table 8. The
cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 5) is multiplied by the percent of fire
incidents dispatched to (from Table 7) resulting in the total apparatus cost per fire incident.
The "bottom line" in Table 8 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $59.18. In other
words, every fire incident "uses up" $59.18 worth of apparatus.
Table 8: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
Annual Station Cost
The annual Station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its useful life.
Station Annual
Cost Per - Useful Life = Station Cost
Square Foot Per Square Foot
The City of Auburn Fire Department provides fire protection out of 3 stations and an
operational support maintenance building. Table 9 shows the square footage of these 3 stations
plus the maintenance building.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 11
Annual
Percent Of
Apparatus
Fire
Apparatus
Cost Per
Incidents
Cost Per
Type Of Apparatus
Response
Dispatched To
Fire Incident
Engine/Pumper
$ 31.08
102.3%
$ 31.78
Telesquirt
3,406.67
0.7%
24.17
Aid Vehicle
12.44
25.9%
3.22
Total
59.18
Annual Station Cost
The annual Station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its useful life.
Station Annual
Cost Per - Useful Life = Station Cost
Square Foot Per Square Foot
The City of Auburn Fire Department provides fire protection out of 3 stations and an
operational support maintenance building. Table 9 shows the square footage of these 3 stations
plus the maintenance building.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 11
Table 9: Fire Protection Station Inventory
Fire Protection
Station Inventory
Station (Square Footage)
Station 31 11,500
Station 32 6,272
Station 33 9,553
Maintenance Building 9.500
Total 36,825
Table 10 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per square foot. Each
component of the station cost is listed along with the cost per square foot for each component. The
cost per square foot is based on the cost of a typical new 11,500 square foot prototype fire station.
Table 10 also shows the number of years of useful life of each component. The useful life
represents the average for each component based on data provided by the City of Auburn Fire
Department. The annualized cost of each component is calculated by dividing the estimated cost
per square foot by the average useful life. The "bottom line" of Table 10 is an annualized station
cost of $6.36 per square foot.
Table 10: Annualized Station Cost Per Square Foot
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 12
Average
Station
Cost Per
Useful
Annual
Square Foot
Life
Station Cost Per
Type Of Cost
of Building
(years)
Square Foot
Land
$ 52.17
50
$ 1.04
Construction
215.29
50
4.31
Site Access
19.57
50
0.39
A&E, Permitting, Misc.
30.94
50
0.62
Total
317.97
6.36
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 12
Station Square Feet Per Fire and EMS Incident
The building square feet per fire and EMS incident is calculated by dividing the square feet
of stations by the total fire and EMS incidents.
Station
Annual
Station
Inventory -
Fire and
= Square Feet
(square feet)
EMS
Per Fire and EMS
36,825
Incidents
Incident
In Table 11 the Station square feet per fire and EMS incident is calculated by dividing the
building square feet inventory (from Table 9) by the total annual fire and EMS incidents (from
Table 7). The "bottom line" of Table 11 is 5.08 square feet of station per fire and EMS incident.
Table Il: Station Square Feet Per Fire and EMS Incident
Fire
Annual
Square Feet
Station
Fire and EMS
Per Fire and
Square Footage
Incidents
EMS Incident
36,825
7,256
5.08
Station Cost Per Fire and EMS Incident
The station cost per fire and EMS incident is calculated by multiplying the annual station
cost per square foot by the station square feet per fire and EMS incident.
Annual Station Station
Station Cost x Square Feet = Cost Per
Per Square Foot Per Fire and EMS Fire and EMS Incident
Incident
This calculation is shown in Table 12: the station cost per square foot (from Table 10) is
multiplied times the station square feet per incident (from Table 11). The result is an annualized
station cost of $32.27 per fire and EMS incident. In other words, each fire and EMS incident
"uses up" $32.27 worth of fire station.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
Table 12: Station Cost Per Fire and EMS Incident
Annual Square Feet Annualized Station Cost
Station Cost Per Per Fire and EMS Per Fire and EMS
Square Foot Incident Incident
$ 6.36 5.08 $ 32.27
February 16, 2005
Page 13
Total Capital Cost Per Fire Incident
The total capital cost per fire incident is calculated by adding the total apparatus cost per fire
incident to the station cost per fire and EMS incident.
Apparatus Station Cost Total
Cost Per + Per Fire and = Capital Cost
Fire Incident EMS Incident Per Fire Incident
Table 13 shows the total capital cost (apparatus and station) of a fire incident. The
apparatus and station cost per fire incident (from Tables 8 and 12) are added together to determine
the total capital cost of $91.45 per fire incident.
Table 13: Total Capital Cost Per Incident
Capital Cost
Per
Type Of Capital Cost Fire Incident
Apparatus $ 59.18
Station 32.27
Total Capital Cost 91.45
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 14
3. ANNUAL COST OF FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE
This chapter identifies the number and cost of responses to fire incidents at each type of
land use.
Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire 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 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 in the City of Auburn.
Annual
Number of
Annual
Emergency Fire
Dwelling Units
Fire Incidents
Incidents
- or Square Feet =
Per
To
Of
Unit Of
Each Type
Each Type
Development
Of Land Use
Of Land Use
The Auburn Fire Department's database identifies each incident by fixed property use
categories designated by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The 14 land use
categories in this study were created by matching the NFIRS incident database to the Property
Assessor's property use codes. The land use codes of NFIRS and the Property Assessor have
been combined into broad land use categories for impact fees, such as Multi -family, Retail and
Industrial/Manufacturing.
During 2003 The Auburn Fire Department responded to 2,114 fire incidents. Of the 2,114
fire incidents 1,868 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the incident occurred at a specific
type of property such as a residence or business) or they were traffic -related (occurred on a
roadway) and were included in the following detailed analysis of incidents to land uses. Of the
1,868 fire incidents analyzed 1,363 occurred at a specific type of property and 505 were traffic -
related. The remaining 246 fire incidents were not traceable to either a type of land use or a traffic -
related incident. These 246 incidents (11.6% of all incidents) were allocated among the land uses
on the same basis as the 1,868 incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 1,542 of the
2,114 fire incidents were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the other
572 fire incidents were allocated the same as the traffic -related incidents.
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of fire incidents
among types of land use: Table 14 shows the fire incidents that were identifiable by land use type,
Table 15 shows the fire incidents that were traffic -related. Table 16 combines the fire incident data,
and Table 17 shows the fire incident rate per unit of development.
Table 14 shows the distribution of the 1,363 fire incidents that are direct to a land use along
with the percent distribution of these 1,363 incidents. In the right hand column the total 1,542 fire
incidents to land use (1,363 traceable + 179 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using
the percent distribution column. The result is the total annual fire incidents at each of the land use
types.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 15
Table 14: Fire Incidents At Specific Land Uses
The traffic -related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of
traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 15 on the next page, the number of dwelling
units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of Auburn is multiplied times the
number of trips that are generated by each land use type as reported in 7"' Edition of Trig
Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of
ITE's trip rates in order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
"return" trip). 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 Table 15 the total 572 annual fire incidents that are traffic -related
(505 traceable + 67 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 16
Annual
Percent
Annual
Fire
Of All
Fire
Incidents
Fire
Incidents
Identifiable
Incidents
Allocated To
To
Identifiable
Land Uses
Land Use
Land Use
To Land Use
(% x 1,542)
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
428
31.40%
484
Multi -family
248
18.20%
281
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
5
0.37%
6
Hospital/Clinic
53
3.89%
60
Group Living
16
1.17%
18
Office
24
1.76%
27
Retail
193
14.16%
218
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
13
0.95%
15
Industrial/Manufacturing
162
11.89%
183
Leisure/Outdoors
69
5.06%
78
Agriculture
2
0.15%
2
Church
23
1.69%
26
Schools/Colleges
99
7.26%
112
Government/Public Buildings
28
2.05%
32
Total
1,363
100.00%
1,542
The traffic -related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of
traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 15 on the next page, the number of dwelling
units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of Auburn is multiplied times the
number of trips that are generated by each land use type as reported in 7"' Edition of Trig
Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of
ITE's trip rates in order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
"return" trip). 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 Table 15 the total 572 annual fire incidents that are traffic -related
(505 traceable + 67 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 16
Table 15: Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
2 "d.u." means dwelling unit.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 17
ITE Trip
Percent
Annual
Generation
Of
Traffic Related
Units
Rate _ 2
Trips
Fire Incidents
Of
Per Unit
Generated
Per Unit Of
Development
Of
Total
(Trips -
Development
Land Use
in Auburn
Development
Trips
258,802)
(% x 572)
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home
12,003 d.u.2
4.345
52,153
20.15%
115
Multi -family
6,830
d.u.
3.360
22,949
8.87%
51
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
150,508
sq.ft
0.00409
616
0.24%
1
Hospital/Clinic
512,174
sq.ft
0.00879
4,502
1.74%
10
Group Living
236,260
sq.ft
0.00305
721
0.28%
2
Office
748,457
sq.ft
0.00551
4,124
1.59%
9
Retail
4,503,701
sq.ft
0.02147
96,694
37.36%
214
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
253,937
sq.ft
0.06358
16,145
6.24%
36
Industrial/Manufacturing
13,361,873
sq.ft
0.00349
46,633
18.02%
103
Leisure/Outdoors
578,818
sq.ft
0.01166
6,749
2.61%
15
Agriculture
17,308
sq.ft
0.00000
0
0.00%
0
Church
394,063
sq.ft
0.00456
1,797
0.69%
4
Schools/Colleges
560,857
sq.ft
0.00645
3,618
1.40%
8
Government/Public Buildings
117,087
sq.ft
0.01795
2.102
5
Total
258,802
572
2 "d.u." means dwelling unit.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 17
Table 16 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual fire
incidents is a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct responses to land use
categories (from Table 14) and the allocation of traffic -related incidents based on trip generation
rates (from Table 15).
Table 16: Total Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 18
Annual
Annual
Total
Fire
Traffic Related
Annual
Incidents
Fire
Fire
Direct
Incidents
Incidents
Land Use
To Land Use
By Land Use
By Land Use
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
484
115
599
Multi -family
281
51
331
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
6
1
7
Hospital/Clinic
60
10
70
Group Living
18
2
20
Office
27
9
36
Retail
218
214
432
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
15
36
50
Industrial/Manufacturing
183
103
286
Leisure/Outdoors
78
15
93
Agriculture
2
0
2
Church
26
4
30
Schools/Colleges
112
8
120
Government/Public Buildings
32
5
36
Total
1,542
572
2,114
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 18
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of development is shown
in Table 17. The total annual fire incidents for each type of land use (from Table 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 Table 15).
The results in Table 17 show how many times an average unit of development has a fire
incident to which the Auburn Fire Department responds. For example, a multi family dwelling unit
has an average of 0.0485 fire -related incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 4.85% of
multi family dwellings have a fire -related incident in a year. Another way of understanding this
information is that an average multi -family dwelling units would have a fire -related incident once
every 20.6 years.
Table 17: Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
Total
Annual
Fire
Incidents Units Annual Fire Incidents
To Of Per
Land Use Land Use Development Unit Of Development
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home 599 12,003 d.u. 0.0499 per dwelling unit
Multi -family
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
Hospital/Clinic
Group Living
Office
Retail
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
Industrial/Manufacturing
Leisure/Outdoors
Agriculture
Church
Schools/Colleges
Government/Public Buildings
Total
331 6,830 d.u.
70
20
36
432
50
286
93
2
30
120
36
2,114
150,508
512,174
236,260
748,457
4,503,701
253,937
13,361,873
578,818
17,308
394,063
560,857
117,087
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
sq.ft
0.0485 per dwelling unit
0.0000466
0.0001365
0.0000834
0.0000485
0.0000959
0.0001984
0.0000214
0.0001606
0.0001307
0.0000761
0.0002140
0.0003102
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
per sq ft
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 19
Annual Fire Incident Cost Per Unit Of Development
The annual cost of fire incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the
annual fire incidents per unit of development (from Table 17) times the capital cost per fire incident
(from Table 13):
Annual
Annual
Fire
Capital Cost
Fire
Incidents
x Per =
Incident
Per
Fire
Cost Per
Unit Of
Incident
Unit Of
Development
Development
In Table 18 each fire incident rate is multiplied by $91.45 (the capital cost per emergency
medical incident from Table 13) resulting in the annual capital cost per unit of development.
Table 18: Annual Cost Of Fire Incidents By Land Use
Annual Fire
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 20
Incidents
Annual Capital Cost
Per
At $91.45
Land Use
Unit of
Development
Per Fire Incident
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home
0.0499
per dwelling unit
$ 4.5675
per dwelling unit
Multi -family
0.0485
per dwelling unit
4.4359
per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
0.0000466
per sq ft
0.0043
per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
0.0001365
per sq ft
0.0125
per sq ft
Group Living
0.0000834
per sq ft
0.0077
per sq ft
Office
0.0000485
per sq ft
0.0044
per sq ft
Retail
0.0000959
per sq ft
0.0088
per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
0.0001984
per sq ft
0.0181
per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
0.0000214
per sq ft
0.0020
per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
0.0001606
per sq ft
0.0147
per sq ft
Agriculture
0.0001307
per sq ft
0.0120
per sq ft
Church
0.0000761
per sq ft
0.0070
per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
0.0002140
Per sq ft
0.0196
Per sq ft
Government/Public Buildings 0.0003102
per sq ft
0.0284
per sq ft
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 20
4. CAPITAL COST PER EMS INCIDENT
This chapter identifies the capital cost of apparatus and stations that are the basis for
emergency responses to emergency medical service (EMS) incidents.
Annual Cost Per Apparatus
The annual cost per type of apparatus is the same as Tables 2 through 4:
Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or EMS Response
The capital cost per apparatus per fire or EMS response is the same as Table 5.
Total Apparatus Cost Per EMS Incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per EMS incident is similar to the calculation of fire costs
in Table 7. 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 apparatus are dispatched to many incidents. The
result of this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per EMS incident.
Cost Apparatus Percent Total
Per Apparatus x of EMS = Apparatus Cost Per
Per Response Responses EMS Incident
The percent of EMS responses by each type of apparatus is calculated in Table 19 by
dividing the annual EMS responses for each type of apparatus by the total average annual EMS
incidents from Table 6. The result of the calculation in Tablel9 is the percent of EMS incidents
responded to by each type of apparatus. For example, Aid Vehicles provided 3,889 responses to
the 5,142 EMS incidents, equaling 75.6% of all EMS incidents. Another way to understand this
data is that one average EMS incident involved 0.756 aid vehicles therefore the cost of responding
to a EMS incident includes 75.6% of the cost of an Aid Vehicle
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 21
Table 19: EMS Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
Total Annual
EMS Percent of
Responses For Annual EMS
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per EMS incident is shown in Table 20. The
cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 8) is multiplied by the percent of EMS
incidents dispatched to (from Table 19) resulting in the total apparatus cost per EMS incident.
The "bottom line" in Table 20 is the apparatus cost per EMS incident of $21.78. In other
words, every EMS incident "uses up" $21.78 worth of apparatus.
Table 20: Total Apparatus Cost Per EMS Incident
Annual
Percent Of
Apparatus EMS Apparatus
Cost Per Incidents Cost Per
Type Of Apparatus
All
EMS Incidents
Type Of Apparatus
Apparatus
Incidents Dispatched To
Engine/Pumper
2,047
39.8%
Telesquirt
0
0.0%
Aid Vehicle
3,889
75.6%
Total
5,936
5,142
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per EMS incident is shown in Table 20. The
cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 8) is multiplied by the percent of EMS
incidents dispatched to (from Table 19) resulting in the total apparatus cost per EMS incident.
The "bottom line" in Table 20 is the apparatus cost per EMS incident of $21.78. In other
words, every EMS incident "uses up" $21.78 worth of apparatus.
Table 20: Total Apparatus Cost Per EMS Incident
Annual
Percent Of
Apparatus EMS Apparatus
Cost Per Incidents Cost Per
Type Of Apparatus
Response
Dispatched To
EMS Incident
Engine/Pumper
$ 31.08
39.8%
$ 12.37
Telesquirt
3,406.67
0.0%
0.00
Aid Vehicle
12.44
75.6%
9.41
Total
21.78
Station Cost per Fire and EMS Incident
The station cost per EMS incident is the same as Table 12.
Total Capital Cost Per EMS Incident
The total capital cost per EMS incident is calculated by adding the total apparatus cost per
EMS incident to the station cost per fire and EMS incident.
Apparatus Station Cost Total
Cost Per + Per Fire and = Capital Cost
EMS Incident EMS Incident Per EMS Incident
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 22
Table 21 shows the total capital cost (apparatus and station) of a fire incident. The
apparatus and station cost per EMS incident (from Tables 20 and 12) are added together to
determine the total capital cost of $54.05 per EMS incident.
Table 21: Total Capital Cost Per EMS Incident
Capital Cost
Per
Type Of Capital Cost EMS Incident
Apparatus $ 21.78
Station 32.27
Total Capital Cost 54.05
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 23
5. ANNUAL COST OF EMS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE
This chapter identifies the number and cost of responses to EMS incidents at each type of
land use.
Annual EMS Incident Rate Per Unit Of Develooment
In this Chapter the annual EMS incident rate per unit of development is calculated using the
same methodology as described for fire incidents in Chapter 3.
During 2003 The Auburn Fire Department responded to 5,142 EMS incidents. Of the
5,142 EMS incidents 5,013were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the incident occurred at a
specific type of property such as a residence or business) or they were traffic -related (occurred on a
roadway) and were included in the following detailed analysis of incidents to land uses. Of the
5,013 EMS incidents analyzed 4,139 occurred at a specific type of property and 874 were traffic -
related. The remaining 129 EMS incidents were not traceable to either a type of land use or a
traffic -related incident. These 129 incidents (2.51% of all incidents) were allocated among the land
uses on the same basis as the 5,013 incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 4,246 of
the 5,142 EMS incidents were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the
other 896 EMS incidents were allocated the same as the traffic -related incidents.
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of EMS incidents
among types of land use: Table 22 shows the EMS incidents that were identifiable by land use type,
Table 23 shows the EMS incidents that were traffic -related. Table 24 combines the EMS incident
data, and Table 25 shows the EMS incident rate per unit of development.
Table 22 shows the distribution of the 4,139 EMS incidents that are direct to a land use
along with the percent distribution of these 4,139 incidents. In the right hand column the total 4,246
EMS incidents to land use (4,139 traceable + 107 allocated) is 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.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 24
Table 22: EMS Incidents At Specific Land Uses
The traffic -related EMS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of
traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 23 on the next page, the number of dwelling
units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of Auburn is multiplied times the
number of trips that are generated by each land use type as reported in 7th Edition of Trip
Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of
ITE's trip rates in order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
"return" trip). 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 Table 23 the total 896 annual EMS incidents that are traffic -related
(874 traceable + 22 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 25
Annual
Percent
Annual
EMS
Of All
EMS
Incidents
EMS
Incidents
Identifiable
Incidents
Allocated To
To
Identifiable
Land Uses
Land Use
Land Use
To Land Use
(% x 4,246)
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
1,690
40.83%
1,734
Multi -family
1,092
26.38%
1,120
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
23
0.56%
24
Hospital/Clinic
119
2.88%
122
Group Living
252
6.09%
259
Office
27
0.65%
28
Retail
255
6.16%
262
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
53
1.28%
54
Industrial/Manufacturing
75
1.81%
77
Leisure/Outdoors
362
8.75%
371
Agriculture
2
0.05%
2
Church
13
0.31%
13
Schools/Colleges
68
1.64%
70
Government/Public Buildings
108
2.61%
111
Total
4,139
4.246
The traffic -related EMS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of
traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 23 on the next page, the number of dwelling
units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of Auburn is multiplied times the
number of trips that are generated by each land use type as reported in 7th Edition of Trip
Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of
ITE's trip rates in order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
"return" trip). 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 Table 23 the total 896 annual EMS incidents that are traffic -related
(874 traceable + 22 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 25
Table 23: Traffic Related EMS Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
Total
3 "d.u." means dwelling unit.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
258,802 896
February 16, 2005
Page 26
ITE Trip
Percent
Annual
Generation
Of
Traffic Related
Units
Rate _ 2
Trips
EMS Incidents
Of
Per Unit
Generated
Per Unit Of
Development
Of
Total
(Trips _
Development
Land Use
in Auburn
Development
Trips
258,802)
(% x 896)
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home
12,003
d. U.3
4.345
52,153
20.15%
181
Multi -family
6,830
d.u.
3.360
22,949
8.87%
79
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
150,508
sq.ft
0.00409
616
0.24%
2
Hospital/Clinic
512,174
sq.ft
0.00879
4,502
1.74%
16
Group Living
236,260
sq.ft
0.00305
721
0.28%
2
Office
748,457
sq.ft
0.00551
4,124
1.59%
14
Retail
4,503,701
sq.ft
0.02147
96,694
37.36%
335
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
253,937
sq.ft
0.06358
16,145
6.24%
56
Industrial/Manufacturing
13,361,873
sq.ft
0.00349
46,633
18.02%
161
Leisure/Outdoors
578,818
sq.ft
0.01166
6,749
2.61%
23
Agriculture
17,308
sq.ft
0.00000
0
0.00%
0
Church
394,063
sq.ft
0.00456
1,797
0.69%
6
Schools/Colleges
560,857
sq.ft
0.00645
3,618
1.40%
13
Government/Public Buildings
117,087
sq.ft
0.01795
2,102
7
Total
3 "d.u." means dwelling unit.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
258,802 896
February 16, 2005
Page 26
Table 24 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
categories (from Table 22) and the allocation of traffic -related incidents based on trip generation
rates (from Table 23).
Table 24: Total Annual EMS Incidents By Land Use
Annual
Annual
Total
EMS
Traffic Related
Annual
Incidents
EMS
EMS
Direct
Incidents
Incidents
Land Use To Land Use
By Land Use
By Land Use
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
1,734
181
1,914
Multi -family
1,120
79
1,200
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
24
2
26
Hospital/Clinic
122
16
138
Group Living
259
2
261
Office
28
14
42
Retail
262
335
596
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
54
56
110
Industrial/Manufacturing
77
161
238
Leisure/Outdoors
371
23
395
Agriculture
2
0
2
Church
13
6
20
Schools/Colleges
70
13
82
Government/Public Buildings
111
7
118
Total 4.246 896 5,142
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 27
The final step in determining the annual EMS incident rate per unit of development is
shown in Table 25. The total annual EMS incidents for each type of land use (from Table 24) 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
determine traffic -related incidents (see Table 23).
The results in Table 25 show how many times an average unit of development has a EMS
incident to which the Auburn Fire Department responds. For example, a multi family dwelling unit
has an average of 0.1756 EMS incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 17.56% of multi
family dwellings have a EMS incident in a year. Another way of understanding this information is
that an average multi -family dwelling unit would have a EMS incident once every 5.7 years.
Table 25: Annual EMS Incidents By Land Use
Total 5,142
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 28
Total
Annual
EMS
Incidents
Units
Annual
EMS Incidents
To
Of
Per
Land Use
Land Use
Development
Unit Of Development
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home
1,914
12,003 d.u.
0.1595
per dwelling unit
Multi -family
1,200
6,830 d.u.
0.1756
per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
26
150,508 sq.ft
0.0001709
per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
138
512,174 sq.ft
0.0002688
per sq ft
Group Living
261
236,260 sq.ft
0.0011048
per sq ft
Office
42
748,457 sq.ft
0.0000561
per sq ft
Retail
596
4,503,701 sq.ft
0.0001324
per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
110
253,937 sq.ft
0.0004342
per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
238
13,361,873 sq.ft
0.0000178
per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
395
578,818 sq.ft
0.0006819
per sq ft
Agriculture
2
17,308 sq.ft
0.0001185
per sq ft
Church
20
394,063 sq.ft
0.0000496
Per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
82
560,857 sq.ft
0.0001467
Per sq ft
Government/Public Buildings
118
117,087 sq ft
0.0010084
per sq ft
Total 5,142
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 28
Annual EMS Incident Cost Per Unit Of Development
The annual cost of EMS incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the
annual EMS incidents per unit of development (from Table 25) times the capital cost per EMS
incident (from Table 21):
Annual
Annual
EMS
Capital Cost
EMS
Incidents
x Per =
Incident
Per
EMS
Cost Per
Unit Of
Incident
Unit Of
Development
Development
In Table 26 each EMS incident rate is multiplied by $54.05 (the capital cost per EMS
incident from Table 21) resulting in the annual capital cost per unit of development.
Table 26: Annual Cost Of EMS Incidents By Land Use
Annual EMS
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 29
Incidents
Annual Capital Cost
Per
At $54.05
Land Use
Unit of
Development
Per EMS Incident
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile
Home
0.1595
per dwelling unit
$ 8.6204
per dwelling unit
Multi -family
0.1756
per dwelling unit
9.4944
per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
0.0001709
per sq ft
0.0092
per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
0.0002688
per sq ft
0.0145
per sq ft
Group Living
0.0011048
per sq ft
0.0597
per sq ft
Office
0.0000561
per sq ft
0.0030
per sq ft
Retail
0.0001324
per sq ft
0.0072
per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
0.0004342
per sq ft
0.0235
per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
0.0000178
per sq ft
0.0010
per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
0.0006819
per sq ft
0.0369
per sq ft
Agriculture
0.0001185
per sq ft
0.0064
per sq ft
Church
0.0000496
Per sq ft
0.0027
Per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
0.0001467
Per sq ft
0.0079
Per sq ft
Government/Public Buildings
0.0010084
per sq ft
0.0545
per sq ft
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 29
6. IMPACT FEE PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
In this chapter the annual fire and EMS cost per unit of development (from Chapters 3 and
5) are used to calculate the total fire protection facilities cost over the economic life of new
structures. This chapter also addresses the credits for payments of other revenues. The result is the
fire impact fee rates for the City of Auburn.
Annual Fire and EMS Cost Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire and EMS cost per unit of development (from Chapters 3 and 5) are
combined to determine the annual fire and EMS cost per dwelling unit or non-residential square
foot.
Annual
Annual
Annual
Fire
EMS
Fire and EMS
Incident
+ Incident =
Cost Per
Cost Per
Cost Per
Unit Of
Unit of
Unit of
Development
Development
Development
In Table 27 the annual fire and EMS cost per unit of development (from Tables 18 and 26)
are added together to determine the annual fire and EMS cost per dwelling unit or non-residential
square foot.
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 30
Table 27: Annual Cost Of Fire and EMS Incidents By Land Use
Total Cost Per Unit Of Development
Fire impact fees are determined by charging the annual cost for a period equal to the
expected economic life of new development.
Annual
Annual
Annual
Fire and EMS
Annual
Fire and EMS
Fire Cost
EMS Cost
Fire and EMS
Unit of
Per Unit Of
Per Unit Of
Cost
Per Unit Of
Land Use
Development
Development
Development
Residential
Single Family, Duplex,
Mobile Home
$ 4.5675
$ 8.6204
$ 13.1879
per dwelling unit
Multi -family
4.4359
9.4944
13.9309
per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
0.0043
0.0092
0.0135
per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
0.0125
0.0145
0.0270
per sq ft
Group Living
0.0076
0.0597
0.0673
per sq ft
Office
0.0044
0.0030
0.0075
per sq ft
Retail
0.0088
0.0072
0.0159
per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
0.0181
0.0235
0.0416
per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
0.0020
0.0010
0.0029
per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
0.0147
0.0369
0.0516
per sq ft
Agriculture
0.0120
0.0064
0.0184
per sq ft
Church
0.0070
0.0027
0.0096
Per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
0.0196
0.0079
0.0275
Per sq ft
Government/Public
Buildings
0.0284
0.0545
0.0829
per sq ft
Total Cost Per Unit Of Development
Fire impact fees are determined by charging the annual cost for a period equal to the
expected economic life of new development.
Annual
Economic
Total
Fire and EMS
Life
Fire and EMS
Cost Per
x Of =
Cost Per
Unit of
Developmcnt
Unit Of
Development
Development
Impact fees should pay for the cost of providing capital facilities for the life of the building
paying the impact fee. The building needs to pay for the demands it places on fire protection
facilities for as long as the expected life of the newly constructed development. The economic life
time frame used in the impact fee calculation is 27.5 years for residential structures and 39 years for
non-residential structures. These time frames are based on I.R.S. guidelines for the economic life
of these two classes of structures.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 31
In Table 28 the total fire and EMS cost per unit of development is calculated by multiplying
the annual cost (from Table 27) by the number of years of economic life
Table 28: Total Cost Of Fire and EMS Incidents By Land Use
Adjustments (Revenue Credits) and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire protection impact fee is to reduce the cost per dwelling
unit or non-residential square foot by adjusting (subtracting) any revenue credits for other revenue
from existing and new development that the City of Auburn will use to pay for part of the cost of
new fire protection facilities.
Total
Annual
Economic
Impact Fee
Cost Per - For Revenue =
Fire and EMS
Life
Total
Development
Cost
Of
Fire and EMS
Per Unit Of
Development
Cost Per Unit
Land Use
Development
(years)
Of Development
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
$ 13.1879
27.5
$ 362.67 per dwelling unit
Multi -family
13.9303
27.5
383.08 per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
0.0135
39.0
0.53 per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
0.0270
39.0
1.05 per sq ft
Group Living
0.0673
39.0
2.63 per sq ft
Office
0.0075
39.0
0.29 per sq ft
Retail
0.0159
39.0
0.62 per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
0.0416
39.0
1.62 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
0.0029
39.0
0.11 per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
0.0516
39.0
2.01 per sq ft
Agriculture
0.0184
39.0
0.72per sq ft
Church
0.0096
39.0
0.38 per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
0.0275
39.0
1.07 per sq ft
Government/Public Buildings
0.0829
39.0
3.23 per sq ft
Adjustments (Revenue Credits) and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire protection impact fee is to reduce the cost per dwelling
unit or non-residential square foot by adjusting (subtracting) any revenue credits for other revenue
from existing and new development that the City of Auburn will use to pay for part of the cost of
new fire protection facilities.
Total
Fire and EMS Adjustment
Impact Fee
Cost Per - For Revenue =
Per
Unit of Credits
Unit Of
Development
Development
New development will be given an adjustment for future payments of other revenues that are
used to pay for the same new fire protection facilities that are required to serve the new
development.
Adjustments are not given for other payments that are not used for new fire protection
facilities needed for new development. Such an adjustment would extend to payments of all taxes
for all purposes to all forms of governments, which contradicts the well-established system of
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 32
restricting fees, charges, and many taxes for specific public facilities and services'. Adjustments are
not given for revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs because impact fees
are not used for such expenses.
The only revenue sources to be included in the adjustment are those which are used for fire
protection facilities capacity expansion according to law and local policy or practice.
The present practice of the City of Auburn is to use general fund revenues to pay for all
capital costs of fire protection facilities including the replacement or renovation of existing stations
and apparatus as well as fire protection capital facilities needed to serve new development,. During
the past 5 years the City's fire protection capital expenditures for facilities needed to serve new
development amounted to 39% of it's general fund expenditures for fire protection capital
expenses. As a result, impact fees are adjusted (reduced) by 39% to account for the availability of
general fund revenue. Table 29 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-residential square foot
from Table 28, the 39% credit adjustment, and the resulting fire impact fee.
Table 29: Impact Fees By Land Use
Land Use
Total
Fire and EMS Cost
Per Unit Of
Development
Adjustment
(Revenue
Credit) At
39%
Fire and EMS
Impact Fee
Per
Unit of Development
Residential
Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
$ 362.67
$ 141.44
$ 221.23 per dwelling unit
Multi -family
383.08
149.40
233.68 per dwelling unit
Non -Residential
Hotel/Motel
0.53
0.21
0.32 per sq ft
Hospital/Clinic
1.05
0.41
0.64 per sq ft
Group Living
2.63
1.02
1.60 per sq ft
Office
0.29
0.11
0.18 per sq ft
Retail
0.62
0.24
0.38 per sq ft
Restaurant/Bar/Lounge
1.62
0.63
0.99 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing
0.11
0.04
0.07 per sq ft
Leisure/Outdoors
2.01
0.78
1.23 per sq ft
Agriculture
0.72
0.28
0.44 per sq ft
Church
0.38
0.15
0.23 per sq ft
Schools/Colleges
1.07
0.42
0.65 per sq ft
Government/Public Buildings
3,23
1.26
1,97 per sq ft
4 An example of this principle is found in the impact fee statutes for the State of Washington. In the following
statute, a "system improvement" is a capital improvement that can be financed by impact fees. RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) requires an adjustment for revenue credits to be given for "...payments made or reasonably
anticipated to be made by new development to pay for particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt
service payments, taxes, or other payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement
(emphasis added);"
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 33
APPENDIX A: DEFICIENCIES, RESERVE CAPACITY AND
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
RCW 82.02 requires impact fees to be based on the City's Capital Facilities Plan (which
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). The purpose of this appendix is to summarize existing deficiencies, reserve capacity
that can serve new development, and needs for additional capacity for new development (based on
data provided in the City's comprehensive plan, including the Capital Facilities Plan).
The need for additional fire protection facilities is determined by using standards for levels
of service for each type of facility to calculate the quantity of facilities that are required. The
required quantity is then compared to the existing inventory to determine needed new facilities. The
standards used in the Capital Facility Plan are based on ratios of apparatus and stations to
population. (The incident rates used in the impact fee study are consistent with and more accurate
than the ratios to population .)
Table A-1 identifies existing deficiencies, existing reserve capacity, and the need for new fire
protection facilities by multiplying the standard times the current population as well as the
population forecast for 6 years hence (2010), comparing the result to the current inventory, and
reporting the result as reserve, deficiency, or future need. Existing deficiencies are reported in
parentheses "( )", future needs are reported in brackets "[ ]", and existing reserve capacity is
reported as simple positive numbers.
Apparatus
The data illustrate that the total population by 2010 requires a total of 10.3 apparatus. The
City has a current inventory of 6 apparatus, which is a deficiency of 1 apparatus. In addition, 3.3
additional apparatus will need to be acquired for growth through the year 2010. The existing
deficiency of 1 apparatus must be funded from a revenue source other than impact fees. The
remaining 3.3 apparatus can be funded by impact fees.
Stations
The data illustrate that the total population by 2010 requires a total of 31,668 square feet of
fire stations. The City has a current inventory of 21,360 square feet, which includes a reserve of
5,965 square feet that is available to serve some of the growth through 2010. However, 4,343
additional square feet will need to be acquired to serve all the growth through the year 2010. The
4,343 square feet of fire station can be funded by impaCL fees.
Henderson, February 16, 2005
Young &
Company Page 34
TABLE A-1
FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES NEEDS ANALYSIS
2005-2010
City of Auburn
Apparatus: 0.00015 apparatus per Capita
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Apparatus
Required
Reserve
0.00015
Current
(Deficiency) or
Component
Population
per Capita)
Inventory
[Need]
2004 Actual
46,336
7.0
6.0
(1.0)
2005-2010: Growth
22,360
3.3
[3.3]
68,696
10.3
6.0
[(4.3)]
2020 Total
Stations: 0.461 square feet per Capita
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Station Sq Ft
Required
Reserve
0.461
Current
(Deficiency) or
Component
Population
per Capita)
Inventory
[Need]
2004 Actual
46,336
21,360
27,325
5,965
2005-2010: Growth
22,360
10,307
[10,307]
68,696
31,668
27,325
[4,343]
2020 Total
Henderson,
Young &
Company
February 16, 2005
Page 35