HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2016 Item 12 Fire Master Plan Status Update and Discussion Regarding Cost Allocation Methodology
Meeting Date: 3/1/2016
FROM: Garret Olson, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: FIRE MASTER PLAN STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION REGARDING
COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY
RECOMMENDATION
Provide input to staff regarding cost allocation methodology for sustaining service levels to
developing areas of the City.
DISCUSSION
Background
On March 31, 2015 the City Council authorized staff to contract with Citygate Associates, LLC
(“Citygate”) for an analysis of fire-based emergency response services. This topic is particularly
timely with the recent adoption of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and the return
of vibrant development activity throughout the City. Citygate and staff reported back to the City
Council on October 20, 2015, with findings that the City is unable to meet the General Plan
Safety Element response time objective of four minutes for fire and medical emergency response
for 95% of all emergencies within a portion of the southern area of the City.
Additional analysis showed that planned development projects in the southern region of the City
will also be outside of a four-minute response region for existing Fire Department resources. In
October, the City Council requested that staff and Citygate provide additional analysis and return
to Council with the following items in the Fire Master Plan:
1. Revised Emergency Response Time Policy. Revise the 4-minute emergency response
time policy and define total travel time for Code 3 calls for service per National Fire
Protection recommended standard of 4-minute emergency response time for 90% of all
emergencies.
2. Analysis of a Fifth Fire Station. Evaluate the construction and staffing of a fifth fire
station in the southern area of the City in order to enhance the probability of achieving
established response time standards as the area grows and places service demands on City
Public Safety resources.
3. Creative Staffing Options. Explore options for incrementally addressing emergency
response coverage gaps, such as initially addressing the medical response gap wit h a
differently staffed and configured crew, and building toward full fire, rescue and medical
services as the region develops and additional funding is realized.
12
Packet Pg. 216
4. Financing Models. Consider land based financing models for the Master Plan, such as a
Community Facilities District, to finance any funding gap so that new development pays
its fair share for building and operating a fifth fire station.
Citygate is in the final stages of completing the analysis of fire -based emergency response
services, the costs associated with adding a fifth staffed fire station, and financing models
available to the City. That final report of these findings and recommendations is anticipated to
come back to the City Council as a business item on April 5, 2016.
Further Input on Cost Allocation Methodology Associated with Development
Calculating new development’s fair share is a critical aspect in articulating financing models for
a potential new fire station. This allocation methodology apportions the costs of a fifth fire
station based on demand for services related to new development and partially on the citywide
benefit that would be realized by an additional crew. This approach is consistent with one of the
principle General Plan Policies:
1.13.9. Costs of Growth
The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new
development be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help
pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City
shall consider a range of options for financing measures so that new development pays its
fair share of costs of new services and facilities which are required to serve the project
and which are reasonably related to the new growth attributable to the development.
Hence, this policy provides that new development should pay its fair share unless the City
Council explicitly determines that the City should cover those costs because doing so serves
some overriding public purpose. The policy further provides that the City should consider a
range of options to finance services and facilities. The basic premise is that new development
should not reduce existing service levels or create unworkable strains on existing City facilities.
In the 2009 Citygate Master Plan, Citygate stated, “the most beneficial next improvement in fire
services the City could make would be to add a fire station in the southern City area equipped
with one fire engine and a 3-person crew” (p. 5). Given the nature of fire operations, the addition
of a new fire station would benefit both the developing south City area and the rest of the City.
Fire crews regularly respond outside of their primary response district to provide service. With
this in mind, Citygate and staff used a hybrid cost allocation methodology that factors in land-
based data and historic emergency response data to calculate the proportional value of a new fire
station to both the proposed development area and the established City area.
Citygate and staff calculated the size of land in the proposed development areas and the size of
land in the established City area based on these regions inclusion in a four-minute travel time
coverage zone that would result from the addition of a fifth fire station. There are regions in the
southern City area that are currently developed and within the City boundaries which are outside
of four-minute travel time coverage by the existing fire stations which will reside within a four-
minute travel time coverage zone only if a fifth fire station is built in the southern City area. In
12
Packet Pg. 217
the formula below, “A” is the acreage for this region of proposed development. In the formula
below, “B” is the acreage for this region of developed City. There are regions of the proposed
development area that are also outside of four-minute travel time coverage by the existing fire
stations which will reside within a four-minute travel time coverage zone only if a fifth fire
station is built in the southern City area. The ratio of these two regions is one of the factors used
in the cost allocation methodology, as proposed.
Citygate and staff also calculated the three-year average percent of Fire emergency responses
requiring more than one City fire crew. In the formula below, “C” is the percent of emergency
responses requiring more than one City fire crew. This average percent identifies the system
wide benefit of adding a fifth fire station. Having a fifth fire station benefits the rest of the City
by providing an additional resource for emergency responses requiring m ore than one City fire
crew.
The proposed hybrid cost allocation methodology apportions cost in the following manner:
New develop fair share allocation (%) = A - C
A + B
Existing City development fair share allocation (%) = B + C
A + B
When:
A = The total acreage of the proposed development area which would be included in a four-
minute response coverage zone only by a fifth fire station;
B = The acreage of existing City area which would be included in a four-minute response
coverage zone only by a fifth fire station; and
C = Percent of Fire emergency responses requiring more than one City fire crew.
The rationale for proposing apportioning to the existing City the benefit of the percent of Fire
emergency responses requiring more than one City fire crew is based on the premise that but for
the addition of a fifth fire station, the full burden of these emergency responses would be borne
by existing resources.
If this proposed cost allocation model continues as a philosophy to inform Council and the
community of the proportional benefit of a fifth fire station, Citygate and staff will return with
the values of these three variables: A. a land-based calculation using geographical information
system (GIS) to quantify the total acreage of the proposed development area, as provided by
Community Development, which would be included in a four-minute response coverage zone
only by the addition of a fifth fire station; B. a land-based calculation using GIS to quantify of
the total acreage of the existing City area which would be included in a four-minute response
coverage zone only by the addition of a fifth fire station; and C. the three-year average percent of
Fire emergency responses requiring more than one City fire crew. For purposes of illustrating
this formula only, the follow numbers are used as an example. If a fifth fire station provided
four-minute response coverage to 1,000 potential development acres (value A) and 500 acres of
existing City land (value B), and 5% of all emergencies required more than one fire crew (value
C), then for purposes of illustrating how this formula would be applied in this fictitious example,
12
Packet Pg. 218
the cost allocation would result in new development responsible for 61.7% of costs and the
existing City responsible for 38.3% of costs. If Council is interested in this methodology for
informing the cost allocation strategy, Citygate and staff will return with an accurate allocation
calculation based on real land-based and emergency response values.
Input sought from Council
City Council input on this methodology and formula will advise the financial models for the Fire
Master Plan update. Furthermore, in reviewing the preliminary draft financial details, staff is
aware that a funding gap is likely to exist between any fair share formula which assigns cost to
development served by the fifth fire station and the anticipated additional one time and ongoing
development-related revenue.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development and Finance and Information Technology Departments concur
with the recommendations in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal or budgetary impacts from the input provided by the Council.
12
Packet Pg. 219
Fire Master Plan
Status Update and
Cost Allocation
Methodology
Check-In
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Background: March 2015
City Council authorized staff to contract
with Citygate Associates LLC (“Citygate”)
to update the 2009 Fire Department
Master Plan
The 2016 effort is a focused assessment of
emergency response impacts in the developing
southern area of the City
“Standard of cover” scope:
Identify risks
Identify community’s risk management goals
and desired outcomes
Identify risk mitigation recommendations
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Background: October 2015
Citygate and staff returned to City
Council with a finding that even with
fire station relocation consideration
the City is unable to provide the
minimum level of fire, rescue, and
medical services within the City’s goal
as defined in the General Plan Safety
Element
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Background: October 2015
Council directed staff to return with findings and recommendations related to:
1.Revising the City’s emergency response time policy to match the recommended standard
2.Analyzing initial and on-going costs related to a 5th fire station
3.Assessing creative (incremental) staffing options
4.Identifying financing options to address forecasted funding gaps
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Status Update
Citygate and staff are scheduled to
return to City Council on April 5, 2016
with the final Fire Master Plan Update
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Returning to Council regarding:
“4. Identifying financing options to
address forecasted funding gaps”
To more fully illustrate and inform the
question regarding financing options,
the Fire Master Plan Update report
would benefit from Council and
community input on a proposed cost
allocation methodology.
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
General Plan Policy
1.13.9: Cost of Growth
The City shall require the costs of public
facilities and services needed for new
development be borne by the new development,
unless the community chooses to help pay the
costs for a certain development to obtain
community-wide benefits.
The City shall consider a range of options for
financing measures so that new development
pays its fair share of costs of new services and
facilities which are required to serve the project
and which are reasonably related to the new
growth attributable to the development.
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Cost Allocation Methodology:
Apportioning “fair share”
Formula takes into consideration two
primary factors
1.For the total acreage served (within the
City’s response time goal) only by the
addition of a 5th fire station, what is the
percent of land attributable to new
development versus existing City?
2.What is the percent of incidents requiring
more than one City fire crew?
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Cost Allocation Methodology:
Formula
A = The total acreage of the
proposed development area
which would be included in a
four-minute response coverage
zone only by a fifth fire station;
B = The acreage of existing
City area which would be
included in a four-minute
response coverage zone only
by a fifth fire station; and
C = Percent of Fire emergency
responses requiring more than
one City fire crew
New development fair
share percent:
(A / A + B) – C
Existing City fair
share percent:
(B / A + B) + C
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
If the fifth fire station provided four-minute
response coverage to:
1,000 new development acres (value A) and
500 existing development acres (value B),
Furthermore, if 5% of all emergencies
required more than one fire crew (value C)
The cost allocation would result in new
development responsible for 61.7% of
costs and the existing City responsible for
38.3% of costs in this fictitious example.
Cost Allocation Methodology:
Example using fictitious data
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation
Policy Question
Should the Fire Master Plan
recommendations regarding
financing models utilize the
proposed cost allocation
methodology or would Council
prefer to direct staff to return with a
different proposed cost allocation
methodology?
03-01-2016 Item 12, Presentation