Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants say Moses Lake should keep city fire department, recommend planning and reimbursement changes
Summary
Burke Consulting told the City Council an RFA with Grant County Fire District 5 is not currently feasible and recommended the city retain its career fire department while pursuing strategic planning, operational changes, and better EMS reimbursement practices to improve long-term sustainability.
Burke Consulting presented its fire service delivery feasibility study to the Moses Lake City Council and recommended that the city maintain Moses Lake Fire as a municipal department rather than pursuing a regional fire authority (RFA) with neighboring Fire District 5.
The consultants, led by project manager Catherine Getz, told the council they evaluated three delivery options — maintain the city department, form a single-jurisdiction fire protection district, or pursue an RFA — and concluded an RFA is impractical in the near term because of differences in funding, staffing models and response-time expectations between the city and District 5.
"The RFA structure is most like a fire district," Getz said. "The only difference is there's ability to change governance, and you would need a partner. Based on our analysis, we did not recommend that." Don Waller, a fire chief who participated in the study, told the council the volunteer and largely tax‑supported structure of District 5 produces substantially different revenue and response profiles than Moses Lake's career department.
Chief (city fire chief, speaker 11) provided local operational context and data during the question period, saying 90% of calls reach the department within about 13.6 minutes at the furthest points and noting that EMS calls make up the majority of runs. He and Getz discussed opportunities to improve revenue capture through the state's GEMT (ground emergency medical transport) program and to better align staffing between the general fund and the ambulance enterprise to maximize reimbursements.
Council members pressed on levy-rate limits and how District 5 currently funds services. The consultants and staff explained statutory caps (a $1.50 general levy and a 50¢ EMS levy cap for districts) and noted that District 5's property‑tax levy is substantially lower than Moses Lake's current funding level, making a straight consolidation unable to sustain the city's present service level.
Getz outlined a set of recommended next steps if the city retains the department: conduct a standards-of-cover study and strategic planning to identify facility and staffing needs (including possible siting for a third northside station), perform operational refinements to align reimbursements and fund sources, pursue targeted collaboration with District 5 for mutual aid or ambulance coverage where feasible, and engage the community on service value and cost tradeoffs.
The consultants cautioned that moving to a fire district or RFA would require a voter-approved levy strategy and additional funding‑model design; they recommended the city continue exploring targeted partnerships and pursue internal reforms to improve long‑term financial sustainability.
The council asked staff to provide the full written report when available; consultants said the report would be delivered shortly and staff offered to return with additional analysis after council review.
Ending: Council did not take a policy vote on restructuring at the meeting; staff and consultants will deliver the final written report and return to the council for further direction and possible next steps.
