HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2008-01-08f TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION Tuesday, January 8,2008 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Rooms 201/202/203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 1. Fire Department Funding Options and Upcoming Public Meeting on January 15, 2008.
hp LaserJet 3015 W ] HP LASERJET FAX invent Jan-4-2008 1:25PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 286 1/ 4/2008 1:20:08PM Send 6672527 0:34 1 OK 287 1/ 4/2008 1:20:48PM Send 5869561 0:31 1 OK 288 1/ 4/2008 1:21:24PM Send 5869532 0:31 1 OK 289 1/ 4/2008 1:22:00PM Send 5866336 0:32 1 OK 290 1/ 4/2008 1:22:37PM Send 5861691 0:34 1 OK 291 1/ 4/2008 1:23:17PM Send 6353677 0:31 1 OK 292 1/ 4/2008 1:23:53PM Send 2247899 0:33 1 OK 293 1/ 4/2008 1:24:31PM Send 5771590 0:39 1 OK
Why we're here Staff asked the Public Safety Committee if we're all still on board to move forward with charging for fire services. We could put it off until the next board is elected. The committee said they did NOT want to put it off and suggested we hold a public hearing as planned on 1/15. The committee also suggested we hold a study session with the entire town board to discuss moving forward. For the public input session, I will frame the discussion as follows and Neil Gluckman, Assistant County Manager, will serve as facilitator to take the input. Background FD services an area roughly six times the size of town limits. History shows 50% of calls are outside town limits Budget comes from the town's general fund with additional money raised by the non- profit Estes Park Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. 2008 budget - Expenditures are $921,027, with just $16,600 projected in grant revenues. The expenditure money comes straight from the Town's general fund and it is independent from money raised by the volunteer organization. In-town residents theoretically pay a mil levy of 1.8 mils to offset governmental services. Out-of-town residents pay nothing for fire service. Charges for fire service to out-of- town residents is needed to offset the cost of providing services to them. In comparison, Park Hospital District mil levy is 7.5 plus if you use the service you pay a base charge plus a mileage charge. Methods to charge 2004 and 2006 failed efforts to create a fire district. 2004 election created one district of both in and out-of-town residents within the service area with a mil levy of 3.5; 2006 election created a district for unincorporated portions of the service area with a 4.25 mil levy. Larimer County recently approved the option for EP to enter into contract services with "homeowners Associations or other entities governing property within the response area." Staff proposed an optional flat fee of $130 per residence. Opponents' criticisms included: They pay sales tax and it should be considered payment for fire services; Plan not specific enough as it pertained to commercial property; plan may not be workable prefer individual subscription fee. (Internally we've worked on creating an individual
subscription list through our utility billing, but it would require amending our current agreement with the county.) Scott D. - create a Fire District through a two election process: 1) raise the in town mill levy by .5 mills to fund the Fire Pension and 2) collect a 2.32 mill levy from the Other Protection Area with .5 mills going to fund the Fire Pension Seeking public input for other ideas What's next? Staff recommendation to Public Safety Committee on 1/24 Address how current town funding would change if district is formed or charges begin
< 2 \ Estes Park Fire Department- Chief Scott Dorman Proposal to generate revenue from the County residents This proposal is two-fold- First an election to raise the mil levy inside of Town limits by .5 06) mil. Second establish a rural fire protection district with a 2.322 mil levy. 1,4 The Colorado Volunteer Firefighter Pension Act, C.R.S. 31-30-1110 allows, the governing body of a municipality with a population of less than one-hundred thousand, the board of directors of each fire protection district, or the board of a county improvement district may levy and set apart a tax for each year of not more than one mill on the taxable property in the municipality or district. The idea here is to remove the burden of funding the firefighters' pension away from the Town's general fund and place it directly on the property owners. Currently, the fire department budgets approximately $81,000 for the firefighters' pension. One-half mil would generate approximately $71,000 from the properties within town limits. I believe it would be a fairly easy sell to the voters because of the small increase and that the funds would go directly to the volunteers' pension. The second portion of the proposal will be a bit more difficult, but very doable. This proposal would first of all establish a rural fire protection district using the same boundaries as the ballot issue in 2006. One ofthe main complaints we heard from the voters was that the mil levy was too high and they felt that the rural residents would be paying an unfair portion of the cost for fire protection. Under the 2006 proposal, the in- town residents were paying 1.822 mils on their property that would go into the general fund, and the rural residents would have been paying 4.25 mils for fire protection. This was a disparity that could not be overcome. However, I feel this is a concern that is fixable. Under the new proposal a mil levy of 2.322 mils would be set for the rural fire district. The 2.322 mils would be a mirror image of the Town's mil levy where one-half mil would be collected from the property owners for the firefighters' pension fund. The one- halfmil is estimated to generate approximately $50,889. The total collected from in and ' out of town property owners for the firefighters' pension would be approximately $121,694, this would represent about a 50% increase over the pension funds that are currently budgeted. This increase in pension funds would then allow for a substantial increase in the monthly benefit and possibly allow for additional benefits through the pension fund. I understand that money is not the only motivator in volunteering as a firefighter, but I believe having a good pension plan will greatly assist in recruiting new members and retaining the ones that we have. Consequently, this would have a positive impact on one of the Town Board Goals, the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. The remaining 1.822 mils would then go to the fire district to pay for some overhead costs and to pay the town for providing fire protection services. The following is hypothetical draft budget for the rural fire district with a proposed election in 2009. 1
I t Estes Park Fire Department- Chief Scott Dorman Hypothetical Draft of the Rural Fire Protection District Budget Financial Plan 2010 Estes Valley Rural Fire District Budget REVENUE I Revenue Proposed Budget Year 2010 General Property Taxes * $236,713 Specific Ownership Taxes ** $7,101 Interest $0 Miscellaneous Revenue $0 Total Revenue $243,814 * Property tax levy of 2.322 mills on $101,778,000 (2005 assessed valuation) ** Estimated at 3% ofthe General Property Tax EXPENDITURES Expenses Proposed Budget Year 2010 Contract services- $161,198 Fire protection services, Town of Estes Park Administrative and operational expenses of the District. Special district fees $1,700 Legal fees $5,000 Insurance $10,000 Accounting services @ audit fees $5,000 Misc. bank charges, etc $300 Contingencies $5,000 2% collection fee to Larimer County $4,727 Treasurer (estimated) Fire Pension Funds (1/2 mil) estimated $ 50,889 Total expenses $243,814 2
I Estes Park Fire Department- Chief Scott Dorman It is very important to have the buy in from the volunteer firefighters on any proposed fee plan. At a recent fire department business meeting the proposed subscription fee schedule was discussed. After the discussion, a show of hands of the members present had a unanimous result against the subscription service idea. It is important to note that a subscription service fee would most likely have a significant impact on the amount of donations received by the volunteer organization. I also feel that for any future effort to succeed the volunteers will need to get behind and promote the idea to the general public. I believe this new idea may be one that they would support. Obviously, this is will be a complicated effort because it involves two elections. However, with a unified effort from both issue committees, combined with the backing of the volunteer firefighters, a positive outcome can be achieved. The taxes that would be assessed would look something like the following: The increase to in-town residential properties- .5 (M) mils = (.0005 x .0798 x market value = tax) .0005 x .0798 x $100,000 = $3.99 annually (per $100,000 value) Or approx. $14 annually for a $350,000 property The increase to in-town commercial properties- .5 (14) mils = (.0005 x .29 x market value = tax) .0005 x .29 x $100,000 = $14.50 (per $100,000 value) Or approx. $51 annually for a $350,000 property Out-of-town residential properties- 2.322 mils = (.002322 x .0798 x market value = tax) .002322 x .0798 x $100,000 = $18.53 (per $100,000 value) Or approx. $65 annually for a $350,000 property Out-of-town commercial properties- 2.322 mils = (.002322 x .29 x market value = tax) .002322 x .29 x $100,000 = $67.34 annually (per $100,000 value) Or approx. $236 annually for a $350,000 property 3
Page 1 of 2 From: Paul Cooke [paul@coloradofirechiefs.org] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 3:22 PM To: 'CSFCA Distribution List' Subject: CSFS Proposed Standard Rates for Equipment Attachments: Proposed Typing & Rates May 2007.pdf CSFS Proposed Standard Rates for Equipment Colorado State Forest Service Fire Division is proposing to utilize a Base Rate for each type of engine and tender that might appear on a Colorado Resource Rate Form known by fire departments as CRRF's, and has asked the Colorado State Fire Chiefs' Association (CSFCA) to assist them in getting the word out. Background The primary reasons for this change is to simplify the Cooperative Resource Rate Agreement process and due to the fact that resource rates are being scrutinized at higher levels. The proposed rates were developed by analyzing expected costs that include: 1) normal wear and tear, 2) depreciation, and 3) costs of operation. The process the CSFS went through in developing their proposed equipment were to use the CSFS formula as the starting point and adding a factor ($12.00 per hour) for add-on equipment apparatus not included in the NWCG requirements but commonly utilized by most engines as dispatched nationally. These are shown on the attached proposed rate schedule as the "Calculated CSFS Standard Rate" and the "Proposed Rate with Equipment", respectively. Validation Process In order to validate the proposed equipment rates, the CSFS has taken a multi-step process. The first step was to enter the actual rates from approximately 2,100 pages of the 2006 CRRF agreements. From this they identified the highest rate, lowest rate, and average rate. These are reflected on the attached proposed rate schedule. It should be noted that the proposed rates are higher than the average rate in all cases except Type 1 and Type 6 engines. The second step in the process was to compare Colorado's average rates against the average rates in seven other western states. These comparisons are reflected at the bottom of the attached proposed equipment rate schedule. The third step, and the purpose of this memo, is to solicit input from the Colorado fire service (especially cooperating agencies) and other cooperators. Additional Information 1. The attached proposed equipment rate schedule is for engines only. A proposed rate schedule for tenders will be forthcoming. 2. The proposed rates are for "dry" equipment. Because of the considerable fluctuation in fuel prices, fuel costs will be an add-on. 3. The proposed rates are for equipment only. Personnel will continue to be paid at actual rates. 4. The CSFS believes that engines should be lowboyed if the travel distances exceed 250-300 miles. Thus, they are considering a factored higher hourly rate if you are asked to drive equipment further. Also, because dispatch centers do not always have the time or resources to order lowboys, the CSFS recommends that cooperators enter into agreements with local road and bridge or private contractors for lowboys and place this equipment on a CRRF. file:#C:\Documents and Settings\Scott Dorman.ENGINEERING\My Documents\Fire Distri... 1/8/2008
Page 2 of 2 5. The typing chart that is part of the attached proposed rate schedules reflects changes that are being proposed by Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center (RMACC). Please consider these proposed changes in your review of the proposed rate structure. Unless this review identifies cost factors that were not considered in this process, the CSFS intends to implement these rates in January in advance of the AOP meetings - so they need your input as soon as practical. Please send your comments or questions directly to: Clair Brown, Fire Division Colorado State Forest Service Email: brownew@lomar.colostate.edu So that the CSFCA is aware of any concerns regarding this proposal, it would be appreciated if you would send a copy of your comments to me at: paul@coloradofirechiefs.org. NFIRS Data On a somewhat related matter, the CSFS has asked that local fire departments submit their wildland fire data to NFIRS on a regular basis (preferably monthly). They are concerned with what appears to be underreporting of wildland fires and when this data is analyzed nationally it affects the way Colorado is viewed for funding and other resource assistance. Thank you! Colorado State Fire Chiefs' Association Paul L. Cooke, Executive Director PO Box 3945 Englewood, CO 80155 Phone: (720) 874-8116 Fax: (720) 862-2181 wwwgplafirechiefs.org file://C:\Documents and Settings\Scott Dorman.ENGINEERING\My Documents\Fire Distri... 1/8/2008
Proposed CSFS Standard Rate for Engines CSFS Calculated CSFS STANDARD RATE $ 90.00 $ 90.00 86.00 86.00 51.00 40.00 31.00 Rates FIRE BASE PROPOSED RATEWITH EQUIP ADD-ON $ 102.00 $ 102.00 $ 98.00 $ 98.00 $ 63.00 $ 52.00 $ 43.00 RATE 2008-2010 Highest Rate 2006 CRRF 388.00 148.00 216.00 86.00 135.00 137.00 70.00 Lowest Rate on 2006 CRRF 51.75 60.00 70.00 65.00 51.00 38.00 30.00 Average Rate 2006 CRRF 112.87 92.87 94.30 70.06 61.14 54.05 39.97 Engines Requirement 1234567 Typing 400+ 400+ 500+ 750+ 400-750 150-400 50-200 NWCG Tank capacity 400 400 500 750 500 200 125 NIMS 300 300 500 650 400 150 50 Proposed 1000+ 250+ 150 50 50 30 10 NWCG Pump minimum flow (gpm) 1000 500 120 70 50 50 50 NIMS 1000 500 150 50 50 50 10 Proposed 150 150 250 100 100 100 100 NWCG @ rated pressure (psi) - - - - -- NIMS 150 150 250 150 150 100 100 Proposed 1200 1000 NWCG Hose 2-1/2" 1200 1000 NIMS 1200 1000 Proposed 400 500 500 300 300 300 - NWCG 1-1/2" 400 500 1000 300 300 300 200 NIMS 500 500 1000 1000 500 500 -- Proposed - - 500 300 300 300 200 NWCG 1" 200 300 800 300 300 300 200 NIMS -- - 500 500 300 300 200 Proposed Yes Yes NWCG Ladders -- - NIMS Yes Yes Proposed 500 NWCG Master stream 500 gpm min. - NIMS 500 Proposed -- -- -- NWCG Pump and roll - NIMS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Proposed -- -- -- NWCG Maximum GVWR (lbs) - -- -- NIMS 26,000 19,500 14,000 Proposed 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 NWCG Personnel (min) 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 NIMS 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 Proposed State Comparisons (Engines) Arizona 137.00 124.00 124.00 98.00 98.00 83.00 74.00 Idaho 100.00 92.00 74.00 60.00 57.00 51.00 32.00 Montana 100.00 92.00 74.00 60.00 57.00 51.00 32.00 North Dakota 100.00 92.00 74.00 60.00 57.00 51.00 32.00 Oregon N/A N/A 64.00 57.00 52.00 46.00 38.00 South Dakota 130.00 70.00 x x x 23.40 23.40 *24 hr Wyoming 110.00 93.00 82.00 N/A N/A 60.00 36.00 AVERAGE Rate STATES ~112.83 93.83 82.00 67.00 63.20 52.20 38.203 12/14/2007
CSFS STANDARD ENGINE RATES FOR 2008-2010 CRRF's Engine Type Tl T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 =PROPOSED RATE CSFS $102.00 $102.00 $98.00 $98.00 $63.00 $52.00 $43.00 STANDARD RATE Highest Rate 2006 CRRF $388 $148 $216 $86 $135 $137 $70 Lowest Rate 2006 CRRF $51.75 $60 $70 $65 $51 $38 $30 Average Rate 2006 CRRF $112.87 $92.87 $94.30 $70.06 $61.14 $54.05 $39.97 Arizona $119 $108 $108 $85 $85 $72 $64 Idaho $100 $92 $74 $60 $57 $51 $32 Montana $100 $92 $74 $60 $57 $51 $32 North Dakota $100 $92 $74 $60 $57 $51 $32 Oregon N/A N/A $64 $57 $52 $46 $38 South Dakota $130 $70 xxx $23.40 $23.40 Wyoming $110 $93 $82 N/A N/A $60 $36 AVERAGE Rate Western States* $113 $94 82 $ 64.2 52.2 38.2 *(Arizona - Idaho - Montana - N. Dakota - Oregon - S. Dakota - Wyoming) Tender Type -PROPOSED RATE CSFS $70.00 $60.00 $51.00 $51.00 $ $ $ STANDARD RATE Highest Rate 2006 CRRF Lowest Rate 2006 CRRF Average Rate 2006 CRRF $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Arizona $119 $108 $85 $ $ $ $ Idaho $114.50 $102.50 $ $ $ $ $ Montana $114.50 $102.50 $ $ $ $ $ North Dakota $114.50 $102.50 $ $ $ $ $ Minnesota $125 $100 $75 $75 $ $ $ South Dakota $ $ $ $53.28 $37.68 $ $ Wyoming $110 $93 $82 NA N/A $60 $36 AVERAGE Rate Western States* $116 $101.41 $64.67 $64.14 $37.68 $ $ *(Arizona - Idaho - Montana - N. Dakota - Oregon - S. Dakota - Wyoming)