Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2009-05-12(4)STUDYSESSIONTOWNBOARDTuesday,May12,20095:00p.m.to6:30p.m.Rooms20112021203170MacGregorAve.AGENDA2.FireServiceFeeStructure.NOTE:TheTownBoardreservestherighttoconsiderotherappropriateitemsnotavailableatthetimetheagendawasprepared.1.FireCodeDiscussion.3.Miscellaneous. JackieWilliamsonFrom:EPAdministration[ir3045@estes.org]Sent:Thursday,May07,200912:29PMTo:JackieWilliamsonSubject:JobDoneNotice(Send)***JobDoneNotice(Send)JOBNO.1499ST.TIME05/0712:17PGS.3izSENDDOCUMENTNAMEITX/RXINCOMPLETETRANSACTIONOK6672527GregWhite5869561KEPL5869532TrailGazette5861691Channel86353677ReporterHerald2247899Coloradoan5771590EPNewsERROR1 MemorandumTo:HonorableMayorBillPinkhamandBoardofTrusteesCC:JacquieHalburnt,LowellRichardsonFrom:SteveMcFarlandDate:5/7/2009Re:FireServicesbillingstructuresBACKGROUNDFinancehasbeenchargedwithsuggestingtwoalternatebillingmethodsforincidentsfortheexistingFireServicesprogram.ThecurrentbillingsystemincorporatesaSi13/hrchargeinrelationshiptothepersonnelbudgetinadditiontovariousratesperhourforequipment.Thegoalistoreevaluatethebillingsystemwhilecontinuingtorecaptureexpendituresincurredduringincidentsinthecounty.RECOMMENDATIONSThemaincriticismofthecurrentbillingsystemisthatthe$113/hrforpersonnelisunreasonable.Thefollowingtwosuggestionseliminatetheperhourrateperperson.OptionIOptionImovesawayfromtheamountofmanhoursspentonincidents(2718hoursin2008),andfocusesontheactualamountoftimeoftheincidentsthemselves.Forexample,iftherewasafirethatlasted2hoursand10firefightersattended,thatwouldbe2incidenthours,but20manhours.Theactualincidenthourtotalin2008was273.Therefore,in200$therewasaratioofabout10manhourstoeveryincidenthour.Option1appliesthefollowingdata:I.Totalincidenthours(273)xincidentsincounty(47%)=12$incidenthoursincounty.2.2009Budgetexpendituresapplicabletocounty:a.$712,819totalbudgetx47%=$335,025b.Lessprojectedcollectionsvia$130/parcel=$200,000c.Netcountyexpenditures$135,025d.$135,025/128=$1,052hourlyrateforincidents.OptionIarrivesatanall-encompassingrateofS1,052perincidenthour.Positives:I.Simplifiesbillingsystemtoonerateperhour,eliminatingratesinrelationshiptothepersonnelbudgetandequipment.I May7,20092.Eliminatescomplaintsregardingvolunteers(howmanywerethere,howlongtheywerethere,howhardtheywereworking).3.Thisrateperhourisverysupportableinthatitisaverysimilarratetowhattheambulanceservicecharges.Negatives:1.MightgetcomplaintsabouthowMVA,structure,andodorinvestigationsshouldnotallbebilledatthesamerate.Option2Option2takesanevenlargermacroapproachtobillingandsimplyapplieschargesbasedonanaverageamountbilledperactualincidentin2008/2009.Thechargeswouldbeappliedasfollows:IStructurefires:$5,0002MVAs:$1,7003Odors:$750Positives:I.Themostsimplisticofallbillingscenarios.Negatives:2.Wewillreceivecomplaintsaboutthevarianceofhoursspentateachincident,Itwillbehardtojustifyastructurefirethattook5hourstodealwith,costing$5,000,andacouchfirethattook4hourtodealwithcostingthesameamount.ConcludingthoughtsBoth/eitheroftheseoptionsaregoingtoreduceexistingbillings.Let’slookatacoupleofexamples:•Fenelon(Structure):oOriginalbill:$12,563oOption1:$5,839(5.5hrsx$1,052)oOption2:$5,000•Levey(Odor):oOriginalbill:$1,240oOption1:$1,020(.97hrsx$1,052)oOption2:$750•Garret(MVA):oOriginalbill:$528oOptionI:$558(.53hrsx$1,052)oOption2:$1,700Perhapswhatwouldhappenwithanewbillingsystemisthatthetotalexistingbalance($34,000)willdecrease.However,1)wewillbecastinafavorablelightreducingbills(goodforfireelection?),and2)1thinkwewillbemorelikelytocollectonsomeofthebills.20 5/26/2009I 5/26/20092 5/26/20093 5/26/2009MajorFires•TheGreatChicagoFire-(BuildingandFireCodes)•TriangleShirtwaistCompany-(FireandLifeSafetyCodes)-,...LurLtWinSchoFireandUfeSafetF-raflctscorfidFireWhatCodesrequiteSprinklersand4otherfireprotectionsystemsinbuildings?9l\IIt\lILI\ILt)1s2003INIERNAIIONALFIRECOUE20034 5/26/20095I!II“tIIC]cIIitjI’I\{1I!‘2003FireCodesareconsideredPreventionandMaintenancecodesINtLRATtONAL-FIRECorE)2003 5/26/20096 5/26/2009ProsandConsofadoptingaFire•ProsCode•Cons—PublicSafety—IndentifyPotentialHazards—Reducetherisktothegeneralpublicandfirefighters—Reductioninpropertyloss—Overcomingthefearfactor—Costsforcompliance—Costsforenforcement—MorerequirementsfromgovernmentProsandConsofadoptingaFireCode•Pros-continued—Ensurefireprotectionsystemsaremaintained—Allowforpre-incidentplanning—CreditonISOsurveywhichcanhelptherating—ProtecttheeconomyoftheTown•Cons—sameaspreviousslide—Overcomingthefearfactor—Costsforcompliance—Costsforenforcement—Morerequirementsfromgovernment7 5/26/2009ReasonsforLocalAdoptionLocalConcernsLocalAmendments—Lackofauthority—Noresidentialsprinkler—Manyoldbuildingsintherequirementdowntownarea—Unsafepractices—Blockedexits—Lackoffiresafetyeducationforbusinesses—ExplosivesandFireworks—StorageoruseofHazardousmaterialsCodeEnforcementEducationCompliance8 5/26/20099LewistonSept.4, 5/26/2009‘,v-”z!E:SherwoodHBurnedonValentinesDay195610 5/26/200911 5/26/200912 5/26/200913 Safetyisdependantuponrisk;thedegreeofsafetyachieveddependsonhowmuchwillingnessthereisto“pay”toeliminaterisk.5/26/200914 5/26/2009Thereisalsoacostfornotmaintainingsystemsandperformingannualinspections.Localexamples:HolidayInnEstesParkMedicalCenter15