Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFS 2016-02-02 Item 2E - Discussion - Fire Annexation Facilities Plan or Fire Retention Facilities PlanTO: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Ekberg Finance and Safety Committee FROM: David Cline, City Administrator BY: Moira Bradshaw and Bob Giberson DATE: January 27, 2016 SUBJECT: Facilities Plan with Fire annexation or Facilities Plan with Fire retention ISSUE What materials and format should be created for a City Council workshop to review the following options: A. A City Facilities Plan that assumes annexation of the City Fire Department to the Kent RFA, who would be responsible for Tukwila Fire station replacement and other Fire capital costs, OR B. A City Facilities Plan that assumes retention of the City's Fire Department and responsibility for reconstruction of three Tukwila Fire Stations and other Fire capital costs? BACKGROUND The question of which option the City should pursue was discussed by the Finance and Safety Committee at their January 20, 2016 meeting. The Committee concluded that they needed another meeting to finish their review of the attachments provided in their January 20th agenda packet and that they would not be recommending an option to the COW. The Committee agreed instead that these issues should be discussed at a Council workshop. Attachment B — Scenarios Comparison Table is revised to reflect the corrections and clarifications that resulted from the last Committee meeting. The Committee also started a list of questions on issues related to the RFA Annexation that is included here as Attachment E. DISCUSSION This is a continuation of agenda item from 1/20/16 Finance and Safety meeting. The Committee agreed that their review will be to provide direction for a future workshop where these two issues will be discussed by the full Council. RECOMMENDATION The Finance and Safety Committee develop an approach and direct staff on the materials and agenda for a City Council workshop so that a preferred option and proposed review schedule can be selected. ATTACHMENTS A. Facilities Improvement Timing (no change) B Scenarios Comparison Table ((revised 1/27/16) 75 76 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 C. Review Schedule (no change) D. Two Funding Scenarios: Plan A: Facilities with Fire annexation and Plan B: Facilities with Fire retention (no change) E. Fire and Facilities Option Questions and Answers (new) Z:\Council Agenda Items\Mayor's Office \RFA FS Item\InfoMemo F &S 2- 2- 16.doc Facilities Improvement Timing Attachment A FACILITIES WITH FIRE ANNEXATION SCHEDULE YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 Starting 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Plan A PUBLIC SAFETY Facilities PUBLIC WORKS CITY HALL RFA STATION 51 STATION 52 FACILITIES WITH FIRE RETENTION SCHEDULE YEAR Starting 2016 2 3 4 2017 2018 2019 5 6 7 10 11 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS CITY HALL Facilities STATION 51 STATION 52 STATION 54 77 Scenarios Comparison Table Revised 1/27/16 Facilities with Fire Annexation Attachment B Facilities with Fire Retention Facilities Public Safety Building George Long Shops Minkler Shops Fire Station 51 Fire Station 52 Fire Station 53 Fire Station 54 City Hall 6300 Building Police Precinct Fire Apparatus & Equipment Voter approved bond; Open in 2019 Combine Shops, 63 -20 Financing (lease to own); Open in 2020 Combine Shops, 63 -20 Financing (lease to own); Open in 2020 RFA fire benefit charge, property tax levy, + fire impact and mitigation fees; Open 2020 RFA fire benefit charge, property tax levy, + fire impact and mitigation fees; Open 2022 Future RFA funding RFA fire benefit charge, property tax levy, + fire impact and mitigation fees Open by 2030 - 2033 Councilmanic bonding Open by 2023 Demolished Future Councilmanic bonding Heavy duty every 20 years Medium duty every 7 years Voter approved bond; Open in 2019 Combine Shops, 63 -20 Financing (lease to own); Open in 2020 Combine Shops, 63 -20 Financing (lease to own); Open in 2020 Voter approved bond, + fire impact and mitigation fees; Open 2020 Voter approved bond, + fire impact fees; Open by 2022 Future Councilmanic bonding Voter approved bond, + fire impact and mitigation fees; Open by 2024 Councilmanic bonding; Open by 2023 Demolished Future Councilmanic bonding Heavy duty every 15 years Medium duty every 10 years Financial Impacts Equipment /Apparatus Replacement *Replacement of SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) Fire Impact Fees & Tukwila South $4.7M over 20 years + all Agreement additional fees *Annual Impact to General Fund & CIP ( *Impact to CIP includes costs shown with *) Capital reserves created by 20 years of replacement costs RFA through annual revenue $1.1M $3.25M Page 1 of 4 covered in voted bond $1.1M Retained by City $2.85M 79 Scenarios Comparison Table Revised 1/27/16 Facilities with Fire Annexation Impact to Homeowner ($250K) Property Tax levy Benefit Charge Voted Bond Debt for City Public Safety Bldg(s.) Option A is one bldg; Option B is four bldgs. Total Annual Impact Attachment B Facilities with Fire Retention $250 to RFA + $242 to City $710 ($1.00 per $1,000 AV to RFA ($2.84 per $1,000 in AV to + $.97 per $1,000 AV to City) City) $317 up to $85 $894 NA Up to $163 $873 ($250 +$242 +$317 +$85) Impact to Businesses Property Tax levy Benefit Charge Voted Bond Debt for City Public Safety Bldg(s.) Option A is one bldg; Option B is four bldgs. Personal Property (typically owned by businesses) LEOFF 1 Retirees Firemen's Pension *Personnel costs Fire Operations Routine Business Inspections Effective Response Force 80 $1.97 per $1,000 AV ($1.00 to RFA + $97 to City) Varies; business pay based upon type of use, size of structure, type of hazards, and fire safety measures in place up to $.34 per $1,000 AV NA ($710 +$163) $2.84 per $1,000 AV NA up to $.64 per $1,000 AV $2.84 per $1,000 AV City retains - no change Ctiy retains - no change Up to $160,000 in payments to the RFA for accrued leave for Tukwila employees who retire within first 18 months and up to $20,000 in overtime costs for the first pay period after effective date City retains - no change City retains - no change Retained by City No 15 -17 firefighters Yes 13 firefighters Page 2 of 4 Scenarios Comparison Table Emergency Management FD Cares Fire Marshal /Fire Prevention Logistics Maintenance National Accreditation Revised 1/27/16 Facilities with Fire Annexation Attachment B Facilities with Fire Retention Contract with RFA Yes Contract with RFA In -House No In -House RFA logistics division RFA provides Maintenance Yes Firefighters do logistics Fleet provides maintenance No Outreach Council Meetings Council Workshop E- Hazelnut Fliers Hazelnut Kid Mail Mailings Online Survey Open Houses Presentations Public Hearing Social Media TSD E- Newsletter TukTV Tukwila Reporter Utility Bill Inserts Website Multiple Multiple Two, minimum Multiple Articles Developed and handed out at a variety of events March Edition One, minimum Multiple Articles Developed and handed out at a variety of events March Edition Twice, minimum Twice, minimum One Twice, minimum Twice, minimum One Four to six Multiple Four to six Multiple Yes Multiple Posts Twice, minimum Yes Multiple Posts Twice, minimum Mutliple shows, meeting coverage Multiple Articles Twice, minimum Multiple Posts Mutliple shows, meeting coverage Multiple Articles Twice, minimum Multiple Posts Timing and Voting King County Elections Deadline Vote Passing minimum Effective Date Future Votes Term August 2, 2016 August 2, 2016 November 8, 2016 or By April of 2017 50% November 8, 2016 60% + validation January 1, 2018 Every 6 years the FBC must be approved by 60% Permanent, but revocable by City Council action December 1, 2016 N/A 20 year plan Page 3 of 4 81 82 Scenarios Comparison Table Revised 1/27/16 Attachment B Facilities Facilities with with Fire Annexation Fire Retention Note: figures reflected in chart are based on 20 years rather than all years reflected in the Funding Scenarios Page 4 of 4 Week of February 22 Workshop Review Budget impacts of RFA funding and annexation March 8 Finance and Safety Review draft outreach plan for both March 14 COW Review requested changes to Facilities Plan and draft outreach plan Date DRAFT Review Schedule Facilities with Fire Annexation OR with Facilities with Fire Retention Assumes a November Election Event Details Attachment C January 20 Finance and Safety Review and Choose one of the scenarios Interim Staff work Staff refines Facilities plan, compiles responses to questions Week of February 8 Workshop Review draft Facilities Plan Week of February 15 Workshop Review Fire operations and facilities Interim Staff work Staff refines Facilities plan, compiles response to questions March 28 COW April 25 COW Review Draft Kent RFA Plan and Interlocal Agreement Review revisions to Draft Kent RFA Plan and Interlocal April - June Outreach to residents Includes: • Open houses at fire stations, other locations • Meetings with key groups • Media and social media articles • Mailing to residents • Hazelnut article (mailed to every home and business) • TukTV & website May 23 June 6 June 15 or July 20 Council Public Hearing Council Meeting Kent RFA Board Proposed annexation to Kent RFA Action on annexation resolution Action on Tukwila resolution requesting annexation July 11 July 25 Interim August 1 August 2 Interim November 8 November 8 Council Public Hearing On Draft Facilities Plan COW Deliberation on Draft Facilities Plan Staff work Staff refines Facilities Plan, compiles response to further questions Council meeting Last Council meeting to meet King County Elections' deadline. Resolutions could be passed earlier. King County Last day to file a resolution with King County Elections for the November election. Campaign Campaign General Election Voters to approve issuance of a fixed amount of bonds and to levy the additional tax to repay the bonds General Election Voters to approve the Kent RFA Plan and annex to the Kent RFA for fire services White + Green Green +Yellow Facilities Plan with Fire Retention Facilities Plan with Fire Annexation 83 CITY OF TUKWILA FACILITIES PLAN, CONCEPTUAL FUNDING ANALYSIS Plan A - Facilities with Fire Annexation Impact to Debt Capacity Estimated Levy Rates Impact to CIP Funding Source tat Debt Capacity(incl. UTGO) g 0 Inv 0001$ /$)a ;ea Anal 0 a 5 e of 0 E U O OA OA OA to a N W N, 5 co YY YYYY 00 0000 u151M ,a rvvo ip 23 as 8a 33 na EE w w FE N N 4 Z2 � b h N 0 H fl 1 69 V(6 69 VI- in 69 el Vs le VS el le N 0 N N N a � q N wcsi � q r �M rn O N N N a5 N NN • N N N Nq1 10‘4 .4; c• 7,. a t9 N - N N1q ss m c-H d = Qry awam0 2v m 'u 1 0_i_ 0 m9 O.d. mx. -, h ' O� OE n T V V u� a.0 =W 1930 ()gill 0310A Costs covered by UTGO Bonds 69 69- a en Es b7_ 11141 Pi7.`133DR 3C3i1JCelI:L F U U U O m LL Lot 8 183a 0011 OIMdWnIONfO3 RE 5 N ER ER ER ER ER ER Ma Gg N ua Naa N W co m 54 r W M N rn `�nw am N W E9� �d N N1H 9,1 O N 5 01 N O w ma mg 141 ply a!55 n N O o N O N O q �t7 M Z e m _ o Rs, N N 5 15 a N f"MM N ON q � t�f NON N ° M a aa N O M N .M q � N ° � M.11 N O V p �af N 511 ro r1! ^ N O q � _ A � 1 a4 N vrj W 'p NM N � � W 2. o 1 r kg OA 6 6- FN Yi N � < 1 r io t9 W m r � gee see CEA Nee qsqss Migg Egg ONfld 1dt13N30 '8 d10 0110VdINI All0VdV0 1£130 01 10VdINI gee Azge greg zei ati ee CITY OF TUKWILA FACILITIES PLAN, CONCEPTUAL FUNDING ANALYSIS Plan B - Facilities With Fire Retentio Impact to Debt Capacity Estimated Levy Rates Impact to CIP 0 m e g U '' M Inv 000't$ /$)a10H Anal 3° o e g e c n g w § IK/121M1 U .y.- Od1 Nd(1 N N fm0 .1 fA � to � nj Vi N t9 f13 C IL O 'o y FUNDING SUMMARY O O 0 7 • W N m n O d d 6 N a M b " N V ONi V 2 O r8 N 8 y O> d y e d t0 M O N a N 2 N a 2 a N • N r M N W 0 0 y d y N d y O N O 818 a W F a a N 48 00 0 a2 b E tar 22 N N M S N d Ae S d H N d N Cl W N aa O YY YYY O O O O 88 88 • A ryd MwN M N N o Lia N v°i 22 ca SISO0133f 021d F. co Arc vl VI- N N N N • a% y mN» N m g o p� N� :A 4i RE y OI N d NO N o N N m N m co ' m � i H N r. :IL, Fli 1 y 4147.17 4 q y_1217:11109,24*M! ON Og ER N N 0 ERA N r a C AE a o 7. .I *iy_OIIIH 014.11.177TU 0 dNm� pW NNN vm? o� M»!N!c 20 qg de N o m WN Yl a N M d NNpp O m N' O m N O M o fnN wd •- NMe}yo fA zi mN ^N .moo NNM M�y.y -N pN Eg Me og ONfld Td213N35 '8 dI0 0113VdINl Attachment E Finance & Safety Committee Meeting - January 20, 2016 Committee questions and staff responses related to Facilities and Fire Options 1. How did a public safety building end up in front of a public works shop? The Facilities Steering Committee recommendation is for the City Shops facility to be completed concurrently with the Public Safety Building even though its start date is shown as slightly later. Page 2 of the Executive Summary from the Essential Government Services Facilities Plan red book shows detail and was distributed for the December 14th COW meeting,. 2. In the past, haven't we done pay as you go for equipment as opposed to bonding for it as shown in Option B? Yes, we have done 'pay as you go' in the past. However, there are significant equipment and apparatus costs upcoming that would have substantial impacts to the City's general fund. A bond would provide the opportunity for those fire capital costs to be paid with the bond proceeds for 20 years, providing relief to the general fund. 3. Is it true that the RFA can increase costs dramatically within the six year authorization window? The benefit charge may be changed each year by the Governing Board (up to 60% of the operating budget.) 4. What is real in what Mr. Bernard says and what is not true? Until Tukwila policy decisions are made, it is difficult to address cost assertions directly as there are multiple choices before the City Council. Statements by Mr. Bernard on cost are different from City estimates. At a minimum, he makes assumptions about the City property tax rate, which are inaccurate and premature. He also says that the FBC table has a limited number of structural size categories and when the size changes by a square foot you are charged a higher fee. 5. Should the real property assessment be changed on the comparison table? The following Tukwila average home values were found on real estate sites: Zillow Summary: The median home value in Tukwila is $263,200. Trulia Summary: The median sales price for homes in Tukwila WA for Oct 15 to Jan 16 was $237,000 based on 41 home sales. Redfin Summary: As of January 25, 2016, the last 90 days of Tukwila real estate trends show the median sale price at $273,000. Page 1 of 4 89 6. How much revenue results from the City's property tax on personal property? Personal property is about 18% of the total taxable assessed value of the City and according to 2015 tax year values, the City received $2.5 million in tax from personal property. 7. What would the cost be for Tukwila if we decided to implement FD Cares here? Tukwila's call volume for the types of calls targeted by FD CARES are less than one per day; therefore, justification for a dedicated FD CARES unit for Tukwila does not currently exist. The addition of Tukwila Village and other senior adult housing options however could greatly increase demand for this type of non - emergency service. Gaining this type of service through annexation, or a contract for these services, would be a more financially viable and responsible option. If and when the call analysis shows an increase in demand for this type of service, the following projection is estimated based upon no reduction or alteration in current services. Personnel costs would range from $600K to $900K in annual cost and be similar to providing an aid unit. Three employees assigned per each of (3) 24 hour shifts, for a total of 9 FTE's. (It might be accomplished with a total of 6 FTE's, but there would be much more potential for overtime liability.) It would also require the purchase of two vehicles, one front line, and one reserve at approximately $150K -200K total. Creating an FD Cares type program using current FTEs but under an altered staffing model might be possible but would require more extensive analysis. 8. How many people are in the KRFA Logistics Division? Logistics is located within the Support Services Division of the Kent RFA. The Logistics section is comprised of 5.7 FTE. Support Services also include a 2.0 FTE Planning section, a Communications and Government Relations manager, and a Grant Coordinator. 9. What is the cost to operate the Tukwila Fire Department as it exists today (versus the regional model) and how does it affect this discussion? An updated Cost Worksheet is attached (page 4) that provides a final Tukwila budget number that is 99% complete. The end of the year accounting has not yet been finaled. 10. If voters say no on bonds to construct public safety buildings, what's the impact to property owners? If the voters say no to financing City facilities with a voted bond, the City would need to look at alternate revenue options to pay for capital facilities. Page 2 of 4 90 11. What is the cost of outreach; hard and soft costs? Most of the hard cost associated with an outreach effort is folded into existing publications and methods; however, we anticipate two specific mailings that would cost up to $8,000 - $10,000. The soft costs are primarily lost opportunity costs of staff time devoted to these issues as opposed to other issues or priorities of the City. Page 3 of 4 91 ' Operational Costs Cost Comparison Worksheet Rounded to thousands City RFA 2015 Projected Proposed Actuals Budget Difference 10.205 10.538 333 2 Equivalent Levy Rate for Operational Costs 2.03 = 2.10 = 0.07 Capital 3 Equipment 150 133 -17 4 Apparatus 900 405 -495 5 Facilities 1.300 1.642 342 2.350 2.160 -170 6 Equivalent Levy Rate for Capita 0.47 0.43 (am) ) 7 Total Operational & Capital Costs 12.555 12.718 163 8 Equivalent Levy Rate for Operational & Capital 2.50 253 0.03 Interlocal Agreement 9 Prevention & Investigation 836 902 10 '" Emergency Management 338 339 1,174 1.242 66 68 17 Equivalent Levy Rate for Prev. Investrgat orr EM 0.23 0.25 0.01 Total Operational & Capital. Prev. Investigation. EM 13,729 13,959 230 12 Costs 13 Equivalent Lary Rate for Operational. Capital. Prev. Investgat on. EM 274 2.78 Q 05 Operational costs for the City include 5797K in indirect (soft) costs, does not include LEOFF 1 or firemen's pension costs City: Assumes 10 year replacement admin -type vehicles. 15 years replacement for heavy -duty apparatus RFA: Assumes 7 -10 year replacement for admin -type vehicles. 20 years for heavy -duty apparatus 92 W't1UserslVicky■FireFFre Budget Only LR Revisions 1- 26 -16xisx Exp 10-15 -15 1,261'2016 2:06 PM