Full Text
V. 9.22.17 City of Marysville, City of Arlington and Fire District 12 RFA Planning Committee Meeting September 28, 2017 5:00 – 7:00 PM Arlington Council Chambers Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions (5 min.) Mayor Nehring and Mayor Tolbert 2. Review of Agenda; and Goals for meeting; approval of agenda (3 min.) Mayors 3. Approval of Meeting Summaries of August 24 and May 25 (3 min.) Mayors 4. Communications (10 min.) a. Updates b. Public outreach c. Website update 5. Action: Statement of Values and Principles (10 min.) 6. Action: RFA Planning Committee Charter (5 min.) 7. Continued discussion: Governance options and issues (45 min.) Karen 8. Presentation: Modelling RFA costs over time (30 min.) Karen, Finance staff Chief Martin McFall, Chief Dave Kraski 9. Union Comment 10. Closing Roundtable comments 11. Next Steps/Next meeting 12. Adjourn ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 1 Marysville / Arlington / FPD 12 Regional Fire Authority Committee Meeting Marysville City Council Chambers August 24, 2017 5:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Mayor Tolbert called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. and invited everyone to introduce themselves. She commented that Mayor Nehring was not present tonight as he had a family commitment. Arlington Mayor: Barbara Tolbert Marysville City Council: Steve Muller, Kamille Norton (alternate), Jeff Seibert Marysville CAO: Gloria Hirashima Marysville Finance Director: Sandy Langdon MFD Finance Manager: Chelsie McInnis Arlington City Admin.: Paul Ellis Arlington Finance Director: Kristin Garcia Arlington City Council: Marilyn Oertle, Jesica Stickles1 Marysville Fire District: Tonya Christoffersen, Pat Cook Marysville Fire Chief: Martin McFalls Arlington Fire Chief: Bruce Stedman Facilitator/Consultant: Karen Reed Review of Agenda and Goals Mayor Tolbert thanked staff for preparing the binders. She reviewed the meeting agenda as contained in the binder. Communication items 1 Councilmember Stickles arrived at 5:30 p.m. ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 2 Marysville Fire District Commissioner Pat Cook informed the committee that Commissioner Bontrager had resigned as of Monday. The Fire District is in the process of finding an interim commissioner. Arlington Fire Chief Stedman notified the board (committee) that this will likely be his last meeting as he has been offered the position as Fire Chief with South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue. Approval of Meeting Summary of July Motion made by Commissioner Christoffersen, seconded by Councilmember Oertle, to approve the July meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed unanimously. Roundtable: Reflections on Year – 1 Service Levels/Avoided Costs Presentation Fire Chief McFalls solicited feedback on last month’s presentation. Councilmember Muller asked about overtime. Chief McFalls replied that there would be some overtime coverage. Karen Reed noted that the anticipated impact on the overall amount of overtime had not yet been evaluated, but that the Chiefs expect a reduction in overtime associated with training. Fire Chief Stedman commented that with him leaving his position as fire chief there will be an immediate annual savings of approximately $200,000. Councilmember Oertle also indicated that she had been concerned about overtime. Mayor Tolbert stated she had been very impressed with the presentation last month. Commissioner Christoffersen commented that the level of service should only get better. Commissioner Cook commented that service levels should improve with shared equipment. There was consensus that the presentation was very valuable. Councilmember Muller asked if the cost impacts of reducing transports had been analyzed. Chief Stedman said that Arlington has done a cost analysis on it. The community paramedic program will reduce some of the calls. The Ground Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT) funding will also help. Mayor Tolbert commented that the state has capped the allocations. Fire Chief Stedman concurred and noted that the GEMT will make up some of that lost revenue. Mayor Tolbert commented that federal action related to health care is something that needs to be considered as they move forward. Commissioner Cook commented that the cities provide services at a lower rate than private providers and citizens are already paying the costs with their taxes. He commented on the lower level of service with private (for-profit) providers. ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 3 Discussion/Potential Action: Statement of Shared Values and Principles Karen Reed solicited comments on this document. Councilmember Muller referred to item 1 and recommended that the language should state that the RFA should operate “at least at the same” level. This would be more appropriate rather than mandating that they will be better even though efficiencies are expected. Councilmember Seibert referred to item 3. He commented that having to raise the levy every few years doesn’t make a stable financial model. He cautioned that they may not necessarily be able to raise the levy. Mayor Tolbert thought that item 2 covers this by stating that they will make data-driven decisions. Councilmember Seibert stressed the importance of recognizing that they are cutting off some of the funding mechanism by moving to an RFA because they would only rely on property tax. Karen Reed commented that she would make the changes discussed and bring a revised version back to the next meeting. Review/Discussion: Work Plan for September – December 2017 a. Sample RFA Plan Ms. Reed reviewed the South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue RFA Plan. b. RFA Plan Issues List Ms. Reed explained that this list covers the main points that need to be addressed in creating an RFA plan. c. Meeting Dates for September-December There will be three meetings this fall, one each month in September, October, and November. The date for the meeting in October needs to be changed due to a conflict with the Fire District. d. Draft work plan Ms. Reed reviewed the work plan as contained in the binder which will help the Committee to meet its goal of being ready for an RFA election in the August 2018 primary. The plan is to start meeting twice a month from January through April. Motion made by Councilmember Stickles, seconded by Commissioner Cook, to approve the Draft Work Plan. Motion passed unanimously. e. Draft Communications Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 4 Ms. Reed recommended consistency in posting information and keeping the public informed about the status of the RFA Committee. Motion made by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Councilmember Oertle, to approve the proposed Draft Communications Plan. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Reed asked if the Committee would like to allow time to each agenda for union members to make comments. This is something the District 1 did in their RFA process. Commissioners Cook, Christoffersen, and Councilmember Oertle spoke in support of providing time for union member comments in order to be inclusive. RFA Planning Committee formation issues Ms. Reed noted that legal counsel has advised her that the Committee is duly formed. One question which needs to be considered is whether or not Arlington would like to provide an alternate member in the event that one of their members isn’t able to attend. Review/Discussion: Draft Planning Committee Charter Ms. Reed reviewed the Draft Planning Committee Charter. If everyone wants to have an alternate, that should be included in the Charter. Commissioner Cook pointed out a correction under Membership. There was consensus to not have conference calls be an option for those who cannot attend. Councilmember Muller raised a concern about the 2/3 approval requirement for the final plan. There was consensus to allow a proxy vote for the final plan if there is no alternate available. Governance Briefing – options and issues Ms. Reed reviewed the Issue Paper contained in the binder regarding Governance scope of issues and basic rules. There was discussion surrounding EMS levy voting details and the sequence of events. Commissioner Cook pointed out that Fire District 12 doesn’t have to go to a vote of the people for a levy lid lift because of banked capacity. Finance Manager Chelsie McInnis concurred and explained that Fire District 12 would maintain the same capacity in the EMS levy if the District isn’t dissolved. Councilmember Stikles referred to the composition of Board and asked if anyone ever moves to all elected members after the RFA. Ms. Reed explained that did that. They are starting with all appointed members, but will replace out members gradually until they have seven board members – five from districts and two at large. ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 5 After discussion around possibilities for size and composition of the Board, there was consensus to consider a size of 5 to 7 members. Ms. Reed asked about philosophical issues surrounding the composition of the Board. Councilmember Stikles spoke in support of moving to a directly elected model over time because it would offer better representation for the whole region rather than just the individual entities. Councilmember Seibert thought it should just be Councilmembers to avoid having the cost of two separate elections. He noted that citizens already recognize the City Council as leaders. It could get confusing having another group of elected officials. Councilmember Norton thought it would be better to have Councilmembers because they would be better able to look at the issues in a holistic way and understand the impacts on the taxpayers. Councilmember Muller spoke in support of having the Council at the beginning, but then moving toward appointments. Ms. Reed pointed out that all appointed Board members need to be elected officials of component jurisdictions. Commissioner Cook spoke in support of eventually opening this up to other community members to serve on the Board because there are many interested people who are extremely capable. Councilmember Seibert expressed concern about opening it up to at large members due to potential conflict of interests. Commissioner Cook spoke in support of having the most highly trained people on the board in order to provide the best service for the citizens. Councilmember Oertle spoke in support of having appointed elected officials to start and possibly opening it up later. Mayor Tolbert spoke in support of having appointed elected officials at the start and then moving to elected board members in order to allow the Council to focus on city issues. She suggested that phasing to an elected board would depend on the comfort level of the appointed board. Expected Growth in property taxes versus other costs Ms. Reed reviewed the RFA property tax summary, property tax growth vs. expenditure growth, and RFA models for sustainable funding. Template for defining sustainable services assumptions: building baseline costs Ms. Reed referred to the RFA Issues List and explained that staff would bring back options for each of these as needed to create an RFA Plan. Final Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- RFA Committee 8/24/17 Page 6 Steve Muller stated that it was good to give comments. He feels they are going in the right direction. He still has questions about sustainability. The assumption that they will be raising taxes every few years is scary. Tonya Christoffersen expressed appreciation for the outline and the work plan. She would like to see more efforts to keep the public informed with news stories and information on the website. Marilyn Oertle agreed with Tonya Christoffersen about getting the public up to speed as she feels this is the biggest hurdle. Jessica Stikles spoke to the value of the work plan schedule. Paul Ellis said he appreciated hearing all the discussion on this so staff knows how to proceed. Next steps/Next meeting September 28 is the next meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Jon Nehring Barb Tolbert Chair Chair Recording Secretary ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT 1 MINUTES OF THE MARYSVILLE / ARLINGTON / FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT #12 REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY PLANNING COMMITTEE Arlington City Council Chambers 110 East Third Street May 25, 2017 Marysville Councilmembers Present: Jeff Vaughan, Jeff Seibert, Rob Toyer Arlington Councilmembers Present: Chris Raezer, Marilyn Oertle. FPD #12 Commissioners Present: Pat Cook, Gary Bontrager Also known to be present were Snohomish County Councilmember Nate Nehring, Karen Reed, City of Marysville Mayor Jon Nehring and staff members Gloria Hirashima, Sandy Langdon; City of Arlington Mayor Barbara Tolbert and staff members Paul Ellis, Kristin Garcia, Kristin Banfield; Fire Protection District #12 staff members Martin McFalls, Tom Maloney, Jeff Cole, Aaron Soper, Krista Longspaugh, Jason Tucker, Joe Ballif, Ricky Williamson, Darryl Neuhoff. Arlington Mayor Barbara Tolbert called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 23, 2017 MEETING Councilmember Chris Raezer moved to approve minutes from March 23, 2017 meeting. Councilmember Marilyn Oertle seconded the motion which was passed unanimously. FACILITATION SERVICES Mayor Nehring introduced Karen Reed of Karen Reed Consulting, LLC and provided some information on her background. Ms. Reed provided additional information on her background as a local government consultant who focuses on assisting in multi‐agency negotiations and facilitating discussions around difficult processes. She noted that she has worked with two regional fire authority planning processes in the area. She then outlined a potential process for the planning committee to go through to see if there is commonality. Discussion followed on the potential for bringing Ms. Reed on board to help facilitate. Mayor Nehring expressed that Ms. Reed’s lie with identifying an organized pathway for one or more of the partners to move toward a common goal. Mayor Tolbert stated that the discussion seems to indicate the majority of the members present feel that we should bring Ms. Reed on board. UPDATES FROM ENTITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- Minutes of the Marysville/Arlington/FPD #12 Planning Committee Meeting May25, 2017 2 Arlington Mayor Tolbert reported on the recent council retreat and the discussions on a regional fire authority. She indicated that the Arlington Council is not yet at a comfortable point. Marysville Mayor Nehring reported the Marysville council has focused on the EMS levy rate issues and have placed a levy lid lift on the August ballot in addition to using banked capacity. Fire District 12 Commissioner Bontrager reported that they spent the last two months focusing on researching what information might be beneficial to the city. He is positive that active, ongoing communication will be the key to help cities understand the benefits. DISCUSSION OF JUNE 22 MEETING AGENDA, MARYSVILLE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ms. Reed stated that the goal will be to determine if there is a shared nexus for the June 22 meeting . Councilmember Oertle moved and Councilmember Raezer seconded to direct Ms. Karen Reed to proceed to determine if there is a shared nexus with each agency on the RFA matter, to be funded by all 3 agencies equally. Motion passed with Seibert voting nay. ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Oertle shared that she has a more open mind after today’s discussions. Commissioner Bontrager asked the members of the planning committee to continue sharing information with your fellow elected officials about the RFA process and where things stand to date. Chief McFalls noted that an EMS yes levy committee is being formed. He also shared his congratulations to Deputy Chief Cooper on his retirement and Captain Kraski on his promotion. Councilmember Seibert shared that he believes the Council’s actions on the EMS levy demonstrate that the City is stepping up. Commissioner Cook expressed that he is happy to have Karen on board and is hopeful that her may alleviate some fears. Councilmember Vaughan thanked everyone for sharing their perspectives tonight. Councimember Raezer remarked that we are still going to be neighbors and will still work hard together. ---PAGE BREAK--- Minutes of the Marysville/Arlington/FPD #12 Planning Committee Meeting May25, 2017 3 Mayor Nehring thanked the committee for being present and engaged. He noted that these are not easy decisions and he believes we will make progress with Karen on board. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Barbara Tolbert, Mayor Jon Nehring, Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Marysville-Arlington-Fire District 12 RFA Planning Committee Issue Paper Prepared by: Karen Reed Date: Revision dated September 13, 2017 (changes are found in italics under “Staff Recommendations“ and “Direction from Planning Committee” sections below and addition of Attachment 3) Title: Governance –scope of issues and basic rules Summary Description of issue: One of the major decisions for the Planning Committee is how the governance board for the RFA should be structured initially, and whether the RFA Plan should also include a transition plan for how that initial board structure should evolve over time. Considerations include: A. Number of board members B. How are positions filled—by voters or council/commission appointment? C. Terms of office D. Allocation of seats between participating agencies E. Should we anticipate a change in board structure over time? F. Are there decision making rules that we can/should add require supermajority vote for some items)? G. Is it possible other agencies will want to join the RFA in the future? How does that impact the governance plan? Options: There are a very wide array of options available to the Planning Committee. The parameters and considerations are outlined on Attachment A. Staff Recommendation and Rationale: Staff recommends ensuring the RFA Plan incorporates basic provisions (mostly statutory references) necessary to allow the RFA territory to expand in the future (by annexation or merger), and to adjust the governance structure in the future by vote of the Governing Board—to avoid having to resubmit the entire plan to the voters of the City and District. The rationale for this is to preserve maximum flexibility to the future governing board. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Staff recommends that the Planning Committee prepare to discuss their thoughts on Governance Paper at some length during the September 28th meeting in hopes of gaining some consensus regarding specific parameters from which staff can bring a narrower set of governance proposals to the October meeting. The hope is that the Committee can arrive at a consensus recommendation regarding governance over the next 2-3 meetings. We started the discussion last month with a briefing on the legal parameters and reviewing how other RFA’s have approached this issue. Attachment 3 includes a large number of “straw man” proposals—different ways a governance board can be structured. NOTE: Legal counsel will need to be involved in reviewing the proposed board structure. The rules around “one-person-one-vote” are somewhat opaque. Direction from Planning Committee: (new text) At the September 25 Planning Committee: There was consensus that the size of the RFA board should be either 5 or 7 members. A majority of those commenting expressed an openness to having at least some directly elected Board members in the longer term, but this was not a unanimous position. There was no consensus as to whether the Committee should develop a longer-term Board structure, or just focus on the initial appointed Board structure. Attachments: 1. Governance Considerations and Legal Parameters 2. Population and Assessed Value Comparisons 3. Options for an initial appointee Board structure (new) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Attachment 1: Governance Considerations and Legal Parameters Considerations: 1. All board members must be elected officials from a member jurisdiction (RCW 52.20.080) or elected directly by the electorate of the RFA. 2. Initial board seats need to be appointed by Cities and District, since there won’t be an election between the time the RFA is approved by voters and when it starts to meet. 3. Board structure may change over time: a. RFA Plans typically allow the governing board to change the governance structure in the future by majority vote of the board. The Plan can expressly limit this authority—supermajority vote requirement for change, or require resubmittal to voters in order to change. b. For example, the Board could evolve from all appointed members to a mix of appointed and elected members (there are legal limitations here—see below Alternately, the Board could evolve to election by commissioner districts, or “at large” positions – or a mix of districted and at-large positions. c. It is important to consider the time commitment involved in serving both on a Commission or Council as well as the RFA Board. 4. There is no legal limit on number of members—but there is a practical limit. Typically, an odd-number of seats is preferred to reduce the likelihood of tie votes. 5. The Board can include non-voting members, appointed to the Board. Any non- voting members need to be elected officials. 6. RFA board members’ terms may not exceed 6 years, and election terms must be staggered (RCW 52.26.080(3)(b). 7. In an RFA with “districted” board positions, the candidates must reside in the district. a. The primary vote is by district (to identify the top two candidates). ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 b. In the general election vote, all voters in the RFA vote on all positions. 8. As noted above, Board members may be a mix of “directly elected” and “appointed.” However, if the board is comprised of a majority of members who are elected, the elected positions are subject to the state constitutional one person, one vote principle. a. “One-person, one vote” principle requires a relatively equal population base to be represented by each elected position. b. How is an appointed position defined versus an elected position? Any situation where the Commissioners or Councils must select members from amongst the whole group of elected officials in their jurisdiction is considered an “appointed” position. By contrast, any “automatic appointments” from the Cities or District to the RFA Board—e.g., “the Mayor” or “ the Council President” or “Commission President”—or “all commissioners” are deemed to be “elected” positions, not appointed positions, because there is no discretion involved in the appointment process. The one-person, one-vote principle is relevant in any transition from a board where all members are initially appointed to where some are considered “elected.” Sample Board Structures and the “One-Person-One-Vote” Rule Marysville Arlington FD 12 Meets 1- person, 1- vote test? 1 3 councilmembers 2 councilmembers 1 commissioner Yes 2 3 councilmembers 3 councilmembers 3 commissioners Yes 3 3 districts 1 district 1 district Yes 4 Mayor Mayor Board President No 9. If an RFA EMS levy is approved to replace the 3 local EMS levies, the only reason for Fire District 1 to remain as a separate entity would be to appoint members to the RFA Board. If the Plan provides for the RFA Board positions initially held by Commissioners to convert from appointed to elected positions, the District could (and probably should) be dissolved. Until the District is dissolved, the Board of Commissioners must continue to meet Dissolution of the Fire District requires a majority vote of the District voters. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 10. A city or district desiring to join the RFA after it is created may do so by law. The process for this is outlined below: i. City/District desiring to joint RFA adopts a resolution requesting annexation; ii. The governing board of the RFA then adopts a resolution agreeing to the annexation and amending the RFA Plan to identify terms and conditions for the annexation; iii. The jurisdiction seeking to annex must adopt the RFA’s resolution approving the annexation and the RFA plan amendment; iv. Voters in the annexing jurisdiction must approve the annexation and RFA Plan amendment (simple majority vote required). The effective date can be as specified in the ballot (does not need to be January 1 or July How have other RFA’s addressed governance? See RFA Matrix. Note that some of the configurations adopted by other RFAs arguably do not comply with the one-person-one-vote requirement: Staff recommend against following those examples. The RFA Planning Committee Resolutions/Motions: Language relevant to governance from these documents/statements is as follows: Marysville: “Governance of said RFA shall be by seated Councilmen/Commissioners and allocated/indexed in proportion to the participants associated population or assessed valuation.” Arlington: (Resolution speaks only to joining discussion with City of Marysville) “WHEREAS, the plan should result in a governing board that proportionally represents the taxpayers in the RFA; and WHEREAS, representation of the RFA board shall be based on the respective assessed values and populations in Marysville and Arlington” Fire District 12: “WHEREAS, the plan should result in a governing board that proportionally represents the taxpayers of the RFA” ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Attachment 2: Population and AV Comparisons FD 12 Marysville Arlington TOTAL 2016 Population 14,512 64,940 18,620 98,072 % of total Pop. 14.8% 66.2% 19% 99.9% 2016 AV $1,785,173,123 $6,425,149,097 $2,265,698,000 $10,476,020,220 % of total AV 17% 61.3% 21.6% 99.9% For example, on a 5-member board, each board seat (if districted/elected) would represent about 20,000 population Marysville 66% Arlington 19% FD12 15% Population Marysville 61% Arlington 22% FD12 17% Assessed Value ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Attachment 3: Initial Appointed Board Structure Options Marysville Arlington FD 12 Total 2016 Population 65,940 18,620 14,512 98,072 % of total pop. 66.2% 19% 14.7% 100% Considerations: If you expect other jurisdictions may join the RFA in the future, you can start with a smaller board and accommodate adding seats in the future if/when other agencies annex into the RFA. OR, plan to shrink the current representation. If a longer-term board is included in the plan, an initially “disproportionate” transition board can be made more proportional over time. If one agency has at least a simple majority of votes, you could add procedural rules that important decisions (to be specified) require approval from members of at least 2 of the 3 participating agencies. Also, if you add this rule, it may be less important to have an odd number of board members. In the long-term, it is possible to dissolve FD 12 if there is a board structure in place that does not require a FD 12 appointee, and an RFA-wide EMS levy is approved in lieu of the current 3 separate EMS levies. There is a work load consideration for appointing city councilmembers to the RFA Board. This may be more critical in the near term start-up than in the long-term. Several examples of an “all appointed board” are below. Which, if any of these, seem more workable for you, and why? 5-Member Board Examples On a 5-member board, each board seat—if allocated equally on a population basis would represent about 20,000 people today Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 Notes 1‐‐Proportional 3 1 1 Matches the stated policy direction fairly closely. % of seats 60% 20% 20% 2‐‐City focus 2 2 1 % of seats 40% 40% 20% ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 7-Member Boards Examples On a 7 member board, each board seat if allocated equally on a population basis would represent about 14,000 people today Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 Notes 3—Somewhat Proportional 5 1 1 Rounding up Marysville representation, rounding down Arlington % of seats 71% 14.3% 14.3% 4‐‐Somewhat Proportional 4 2 1 Rounding down Marysville, rounding up Arlington % of seats 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 6-Member Board Example On a 6 member board, each board seat if allocated equally on a population basis would represent about 16,300 people today Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 Notes 5—Somewhat Proportional 3 2 1 Rounding down Marysville representation, rounding up Arlington % of seats 50% 33% 16.6% Some Transitional Board Options (implement over 2-4 years) Initially, the Board must consist of all current elected officials. Over time, this could change into a different composition. Several examples are offered below. If a majority of board is deemed “elected,” elected seats must meet 1-person, 1 vote rule. Districts must be relatively equal in population; they are periodically re-sized as population grows, or when a new jurisdiction / territory joins the RFA. The Plan can define a future board structure—or not. That future structure can either be cast in stone, or could be open to amendment by a future board— depending on how the RFA plan is written/submitted to voters. See options on p. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Several options of how a future board could be structured – after the initial “all appointed” board—are below. Which, any of these, seem more workable for you, and why? Mix of appointed and districted RFA Board members Mix of appointed and at-large RFA Board members Mix of appointed, districted and at-large RFA Board members Mix of districted and at large RFA Board members Appointed Elected by District Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 Districts 6 (5 members) 1 1 0 + 3 equally sized districts 7 (7 members) 1 1 0 + 5 equally sized districts Appointed Elected at‐large (RFA‐wide) Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 At Large 8 (5 members) 1 1 0 +3 at large reps 9 ( 7 members) 1 1 1 + 4 at large reps Appointed Elected (mix) Option Marysville Arlington FD 12 Districts At Large 10 (5 members) 1 1 0 2 1 11 (7 members) 1 1 1 3 1 All elected Board, mix of approaches Option Districted At‐large 12 (5 members) 3 2 13 (7 members) 5 2