HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2010 20 Other Business: Fire Apparatus Needs and Capital Replacement MEMORANDUM
July 2, 2010
TO Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM Dick Zais, City Manager
Charlie Hines, Fire Chief
Bob Stewart, Deputy Fire Chief
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director of Accounting and Budgeting
Helen A. Harvey, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJ Fire Apparatus Needs and Capital Replacement
On June 16, 2010, at a City Council study session, the Fire Department discussed
the Fire Department apparatus, reviewed what the City as well as other fire
departments are doing about apparatus replacement, discussed the determination of
an appropriate replacement standard, and made apparatus replacement
recommendations A reason for this presentation was that several first -line fire
engines are beyond their designed service lives, and the reliability of the Department
response to emergencies is at risk. Attached for reference is a copy of pages 21 and
22 of the Fire Apparatus Replacement Needs Study These two charts list the
recommended Fire apparatus replacement schedule, as well as the Fire apparatus
age, mileage, and hours
Major sources of revenue authorized for municipal fire capital purposes also were
discussed, including the possibility of a ballot proposition to allow the voters to vote in
support of or against additional funding for the replacement of fire apparatus One
option that was discussed was a ballot proposition to the voters pursuant to RCW
84 55 050(2), sometimes referred to as a property tax/multi -year lid lift. However,
legal research has determined that a ballot proposition pursuant to RCW
84 55 050(2) must be held not more than twelve months prior to the date of the first
year on which the proposed levy is to be made In other words, if a city council were
to place a ballot proposition involving a multi -year levy lid lift before the voters on
November 2, 2010, the regular property tax levy would be increased above the limit
factor to the specified rate per $1,000 assessed value for collection in 2011 The
implementation date of the first year of collection cannot be deferred to a later year
Our current situation is that the voted property tax levy that was approved by the
voters on November 8, 1994 concerning the City of Yakima Fire Department Fire
Protection Facilities Bonds is still in effect. The voted property tax levy that was
approved by the voters in 1994 has been used for facilities, such as BUIILDING Fire
Station 93 (40 Avenue and Englewood), constructing a Fire Training Center,
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 2, 2010
Page 2
constructing and equipping a maintenance and electronics shop facility, and making
improvements to building facilities, and for limited fire apparatus including specifically
an aerial (ladder) truck. In 2010 this voted property tax levy involves an additional
$0 056 per $1,000 of assessed value on property within the City The bond
authorized by that levy will be repaid on December 1, 2014
Furthermore, with the potential volatility in assessed valuations, if the City sets a rate
per thousand that is the same as last year, and assessed valuations decrease from
last year, then the existing levy that supports services in the priorities of government,
model would be at risk to be reduced by whatever proportionate amount the
assessed valuations dropped Historically, assessed valuations do not often
decrease, but the City's base assessed valuation for the 2010 property tax levy was
less than the 2009 levy by almost 1% In other words, should the voters approve a
fixed levy rate tied to today's rate, and assessed values drop from the prior year, the
total operating levy revenue would be reduced in 2011
As a point of clarification, the normal annual property tax levy restriction limits the
change in the dollars levied — it does not "limit" growth in assessed value Therefore,
when the City levies the annual property tax levy, the change is calculated from the
dollar amount of the prior year's levy, and then the final amount is divided by the
assessed value to arrive at the rate that is used to allocate the new property tax levy
ratably among the property owners
Because of the risk to the current operating levy and the timetable for collection of a
voted levy, staff is recommending that this option of a ballot proposition be
withdrawn, and that staff with the input and guidance of the Public Safety Committee
continue to research options to fund the necessary firefighting apparatus A ballot
proposition may still be an option in a future year However, in the meantime, there
exists a need to "bridge the gap" from now until then to provide an acceptable level
of service
Fire Department command staff is currently exploring all options available to us
These include
• Purchasing used apparatus at a savings versus new and
• Hiring an additional mechanic to perform preventative maintenance on our
current fleet of apparatus The goal would be to extend the life of our
current fleet.
Both of these options add costs to the current budget without additional resources
Unless another revenue source(s) is identified, accomplishing one or more of these
options may require other reductions in the priorities of government model As the
2011 budget process will be starting up in the near future, this will be considered as
the fire budget is being developed
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
July 2, 2010
Page 3
We look forward to discussing the options further with the City Council Public Safety
Committee on July 6
Attachment
cc. Dave Zabel!, Assistant City Manager
Fire Apparatus Replacement Schedule
Legend
Front Line
Service
Reserve Service
Replace /Surplus
Engines
Equipment # Assignment Description 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
4509 E293 1987 Darley
4510 E294 1991 Darley
4511 E295 1991 Darley
4512 E91 1991 Darley
4513 E92 2000 Central States
4514 E93 2003 Central States
4515 E94 2005 Central States
4516 E95 2007 Rosenbauer
Trucks
Equipment # Assignment Description 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
5503 TK91 1995 Central States
5504 TK93 1995 LTI
5505 TK91 (New) 2009 Crimson
Page 21 of 22
1
Apparatus Age, Mileage and Hours
Engine
Description Equipment Assignment Odometer Hours Equivalent Severe -Duty Mileage *
1987 Darley 4509 E293 92,260 8,150 326,000
1991 Darley 4510 E294 110,230 9,935 397,400
1991 Darley 4511 E295 150,040 11,370 454,800
1991 Darley 4512 E91 * *2,135 12,010 480,400
2000 Central States 4513 E92 84,445 7,845 313,800
2003 Central States 4514 E93 67,790 6,635 265,400
2005 Central States 4515 E94 45,850 3,710 148,400
2007 Rosenbauer 4516 E95 19,750 1,675 67,000
1995 LTI 102' 5503 TK93 28,350 2,412 96,480
1995 Central States
75' 5504 TK91 65,254 8,921 356,840
2009 Crimson 103' 5505 TK91* 4,000
*Severe -Duty Mileage is a calculation that provides a more accurate representation of actual mileage by taking into
account idling and pumping while the apparatus is stationary (Engine Hours X 4 X 10 = Mileage)
Page 22 of 22