HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05201986 - RC.2 I�
C 2-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Resources ommittee tetra
Costa
DATE: May 13, 19 6 County
SUBJECT:
RIVERVIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FIVE-YEAR FINANCING PLAN
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR ECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION-
1. Approve the Riverview Fire Protection District Five-Year Financing
Plan as prep red by Robert M. Nyman, consultant.
2. Request the cities of Antioch and Pittsburg to endorse the plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The plan recommends adoption by the Board of Supervisors and the cities of
Antioch and Pittsburg of a new fire protection facilities fee on new
construction throughout the district. It is estimated that such fee would
raise about $1,7510,800 over a five-year period. The fee would average
about $235 per new dwelling unit. The report also recommends the commence-
ment of a process to raise an amount of $416,000 annually from a new
district-wide fire suppression benefit assessment. The assessment would
amount to about $13 per residential dwelling unit per year. The revenue
from such assessment would be used to finance the addition of eleven fire
fighter positions. It is further recommended in the plan that the Board
commence a process to sell ten acres of surplus fire district land. It is
estimated that such sale will generate about $3 million which would be used
to finance certain physical facilities.
BACKGROUND:
On May 12, 1986 Qur Committee met with consultant Robert M. Nyman and
representatives from the County Administrator, County Counsel, Community
Development and Riverview Fire Protection District to review the proposed
five-year financing plan for the district. The plan sets forth recommended
additions/improvements for the fire district over the next five-year period
and a recommended plan for financing those improvements. Similar reports
will be prepared for other County fire districts and will be reviewed by
the Committee and referred to the Board as they become available.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMI AT RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O R
SIGNATURE[SSupervisor Tom Torlakson (Chairman) S.uperv' s r Nancy Fanden
ACTION OF BOARD ON may 20 , 1955 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ---- AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED May 20, 1986
City of Pittsburg PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
City of Antioch SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Riverview FPD
Auditor-Controller '
BY ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
(
951 W.EL DORADO DR.
TELEPHONE: Robert M. Nyman P.O.Box 1700
(9161 696-4559 7. WOODLAND.CA 93693
April 15, 1986
County Administrator
County �of Contra Costa
Administration Building
Martinez , CA
Subject: Recommendations for
Financing Fire District
Five Year Plans -- RIVERVIEW
Pursuant to a contract between the County and myself, presented in
the attached, a �d summarized below, is the recommended plan for
financing the imlprovements indicated for the Riverview Fire District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the County of Contra Costa implement the
proposed financing plan by taking the following specific actions :
1 . Resources Committee of the Board of Supervisors , per
the procedural process approved by the Board of Super-
visors on October 29, 1985, authorizes the County
Administrator, district Fire Chief and consultant to
formally contact the following city governments to
request specific city participation in the financing
of the district' s Five Year Plan, as outlined below:
a. City of Antioch requested to
( 1 ) provide, at no cost to the fire district,
sites for the relocation of Station 81
and for the new Station 87;
( 2) provide for the use of the existing city
fire facilities fee revenue for partial
furnishing and equipping of the new
Station 87;, and
( 3) provide for the use of the $50,000 amount
from the "U.S . Steel" redevelopment pro-
ject for construction of the replacement ,
Station 83 -
b. City of Pittsburg requested to provide , at no.
cost to the district, sites for the relocation
of Stations 84 and 85. ;
-two- f
Riverview Five Y ar Plan Financing (con' t. )
2. ResourcDs Committee recommends to the full Board of
Supervi ors the adoption, by the County, of an un-
incor o ated area Fire Protection Facilities developer
or newonstruction) Fee, using the same fee schedule
as recommended to be adopted by the cities of Antioch
and Pit sburg, in order that there can be a uniform
charge n new in
throughout the fire district.
The total amount to be realized from throughout the dis-
trict would be $1 , 750,800, over a period of five years .
(Estimated impact: approximate $235 fee per average new
dwellini unit. ) ;
3. Resources Committee recommends to the full Board of
Superviors the commencement of a process to raise an
amount Nf 416, 000 annually ($2, 080, 000 over a. period
of five years) from a new district-wide Fire Suppression
Benefit Assessment, to finance the addition of 11' fire
fighter positions , as authorized by Sections 50078 et seq.
of the Government Code. (Estimated impact: approximate
$13 cost per average existing residential unit per year. ) ;
4. Res,ourc s Committee recommends to the full Board of
Supervisors the commencement of a process to dispose of
ten ( 101 acres of surplus fire district land (Delta
Fair) , he proceeds from which would be used to finance
part of the physical facilities outlined in the plan.
RECOMMENDED FINANCING PLAN
The plan for acheving the financing of the requested amounts
contained in the district ' s Five Year Plan is summarized below
( It is detailed n the attachment . ) :
1 . Plan Development. The consultant had numerous meetings
with th district' s management personnel and with other
local o °ficials (.primarily city managers , city planning
officials , county representatives ) in the development
of the plan delineated in the attached list of seven ( 7)
items . A team consisting of the management chiefs and
the consultant carefully reviewed each item to determine
the mosi appropriate method for financing each. Important
to the cevelopment of each item' s recommended financing
was a r cognition of the following factors:
a . the financing plan needed to be balanced and to
em loy the broadest possible financing methods , a
�. -three-
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
difficult task since the passage of Proposition 13;
b. the plan had to acknowledge that much of the
need for new and relocated stations results
t from recent and anticipated growth, and it was
necessary to look to the generators of growth
for much of the financing of necessary improve-
ments . At the same time, it was important to
recognize that all residents of the district
would benefit from the additions of personnel
and equipment and should carry a significant
share of the on-going costs of enabling the
district to continue to meet its responsibilities ;
C . the plan needed to specifically propose the
financial participation of the city governments ,
as facilitators of growth and as beneficiaries
of the economic savings which have resulted
from the creation of the single fire department
serving both cities . The impact of the city
redevelopment projects upon the fire district's
revenue base also needed to be addressed, in
some manner, by the financing plan; and
d . that the resulting plan needed to be constructed
in a manner which enabled a. vigorous campaign
of endorsement by various governmental entities
and the public in general. The plan needed to
be able to be perceived by all as the primary
tool for reconciling the fire service problems
resulting from past and anticipated growth. It
also needed to be the mechanism for implementing
the Fire Protection portion of the County' s
General Plan.
2. Methods of Financing Selected. As indicated above , it
was necessary to explore and select financing altern-
atives that provided a balanced and sharing approach,
within the very limited alternatives available since the
passage of Proposition 13.
Four me hods of financing have been selected . These
are bri fly listed below, along with the amounts
to be realized from each:
-four-
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
Method cif Total Amount Financing
Financing Over 5 Years Covers
a. City govern-
ment participation $ 256 , 000 providing of sites
t for one new and
several relocations
of existing
stations.
Existing
Antiochfire de- portion of furn.
velopme t fee 20, 000 and equip. for
Station 87N
Exi ting
Antioch "U.S . Steel"
redevel pment proj . portion of total
funds collected for project cost ,
fire prIjects 50, 000 Station 83R
bpro e from eds o sale
.
of sure us land (Delta various aspects
Fair - 10 acres ) now of several
owned bye district 3, 049, 200 projects
c . Fire Protection various aspects
Facilities (developer/ of several
new construction) Fee 1 , 750,800 projects
sub-total $5, 126 , 000 non-recur-
ring costs
of stations/
apparatus
d. Fire Suppression cost of adding
Benefit Assessment 11 fire fighter
$2, 080, 000 recurring positions
annual cost
total for
5 years from
$416 , 000#an- j.3
nual asses-
sment
gramd total $7, 206-, 0-00 ,
nor-recurring
and recurring
*the assessment would
continue indefinitely
(starting in 1986-87)
after 5 year period
- five -
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
The bas"s for recommending the four financing methods
is disc ed below:
a. City Government Participation. The management team
which dgveloped the specific proposals believed it was
,- important for each city government to be involved, in
some way, in the financing of the plan. This was not
just desirable because of the size of the total amount
of funds needed and the lack of alternatives . It was
desirable because the fire district is a critical :part
of each city' s municipal service resources, even though
the district is not governed by either city, directly.
It was ;lso believed the cities have benefitted financially
in the ast, because of the creation of the district
with its separate , but now inadequate, financial base.
Finally the team was aware of the loss of additional
propert taxes because of the method used by the cities
and thecounty in financing redevelopment projects . This
method, "tax increment financing, " generally provides
that other units of local government using property tax
financing, including the fire district, do not share ,
for many years , in the additional property taxes gen-
erated ly a new redevelopment project , because the in-
creased revenue is pledged to finance certain costs of
the red velopment project .
The district estimates that it has been impacted by the
redeveloment projects of it ' s two cities to the extent
of over 9620, 000, in the case of Antioch, and over
$1 , 160, 400 , in the case of Pittsburg, since the city
project were first commenced.
In orde5 to partially address the district ' s non-sharing
in the increased taxes generated by redevelopment projects ,
it is recommended that the cities agree to provide the
district with its normal ( full) share of the property
taxes from any new plans or projects , for which financing
has notlalread,y been established. This recommendation,,
although admittedly pragmatic , simply recognizes the
reality that the cities have no practical way to alter
the project financing, once established. Also, the
district needs the assistance and support of the cities
in achi ving its. Five Year Plan, and it would be counter-
productive to alienate them over criticism of their
decisions of the past.
( -six-
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
With the above discussion points in mind listed below
are items of city participation in the accomplishment
of Riverview Fire District' s Five Year Plan which
appear realistic to propose:
S
s Cit of Antioch - city would be requested to:
1 ) provide , at no cost to the
district, sites for the re-
location of Station 81 and
for the new Station 87. The
estimated costs of the sites
is $ 72, 000 and $40, 000, al-
though the district would
not care as to the actual
costs of securing the sites
and has developed the cost
figures merely for planning
and report purposes ;
2) allocate all funds that have
been collected under the
existing city-enacted new
construction fee component
($50 per unit) for fire
facilities ( estimated at
$20, 000) for use in financing
a portion of the required
furnishings and equipment
for the new Station 87; and
3) allocate the $50 , 000 amount
to be financed from the "U .S .
Steel" redevelopment project
(under an action of the city)
for use in total project costs
of the relocation of Station 83
City of Pittsburg - provide , at no cost to the
district, sites for the re-
location of Stations 84 and 85.
The estimated costs of the sites
is $72, 000 each, although the
amount is merely for planning
and report purposes , and the
district does not care about
the actual amount for which the
city can achieve the aquistions .
Bot cities - 1 ) enact the new Fire Protection
j -seven- f
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
Facilities (developer/new con-
struction) Fee and rate structure
proposed to be uniform throughout
the district ; and
2) endorse the new district-wide
•� Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment,
as proposed in this report (would
be enacted by the Board of Super-
visors , as the governing body of
the fire district) .
b. Sale of Surplus Land. The district currently owns
approxiTately 12 acres of land acquired some time. ago for,
among other things , the location of a station to replace
existing, Station 83. The 12 acres are located on Delta
Fair Blvd . , in Antioch.
In the course of development of these financing recom-
mendations , it was concluded that achievement of the dis-
trict' s Five Year Plan would not be possible without sig-
nificant physical facilities financing beyond that which
could reasonably be expected from either city contributions
or developer/new construction fees . As a result, there was
no alternative to recommending that only enough of the 12
acres be retained to site the replacement Station 83 ( ap-
proximately 2 acres ) , with the remaining 10 acres to be
declared surplus and processed = for sale in such a manner as
to maximize the value to be received by the district.
Without imprudently discussing the details of the method
for arriving at the estimated value of the 10 acres , we
are using a figure of $3 , 049, 200 , as a minimum estimate
of the amount that could be realized for use in financing
physical facilities in the plan.
C . Fire Protection Facilities (developer/new construction)
Fee . An amount of $1 , 750, 800 is proposed to be realized
through the enactment of fee schedules , uniform throughout
the district , by the two city councils and the Board of
Supervisors ( covering the unincorporated area)which would
be applied to new construction projects at the time' of
issuance) of building permits . The new construction (de-
veloper ) fee is based on a widely-used concept that new
construction creates an impact upon the fire facilities ,
and the fee is intended to be a cost of mitigating that
impact.
The new construction fee, as proposed in this set of
financing recommendations , is particularly appropriate .
since developers are only asked to finance 34% of the
t -eight-
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
total $-5, 126 , 000 cost of proposed new physical facilities .
The sale of the surplus land and the reqquested city par-
ticipation would cover the remainder (66%) of the cost of
improving fire fighting facilities to meet past, current
and anticipated growth within the district.
It should be noted that elsewhere in the state, where
city governments typically finance and operate fire de-
partments , use of the new construction/developer fee for
fire fighting facilities is common.
Implementation of the fee would be by ordinances adopted
by the city and county governing bodies. As indicated
above, a standard fee schedule should cover the entire
district, regardless of jurisdiction, in order to elim-
inate any competitive advantage of one agency over the
others ,
The $1 , 750,800 proposed to be realized from this fee ,
over the five year period of the fire improvement plan,
when divided by the estimated number of typical resi-
dential units anticipated to be constructed during the
five year, period ( 7 ,44.9) , results in an estimated fee
of $235per average dwelling unit. For non-residential
construction, a. fee of approximately 15 cents ( 0. 15) per
square foot would be needed. The number of units
estimated to be constructed , and the resulting fee
schedules, should be reviewed annually, with neces-
sary adjustments made to ensure the realization of the
$1 , 750, 800 within the five year period.
An amendment of the county' s General Plan to permit the
use of the new construction (Fire Facilities ) fee to
mitigate ,;fire service impacts from new construction
will be needed. The Board of Supervisors has already
initiated the process needed to change its General Plan.
Similar actions may need to be taken by the two city
councils .
d. Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment . The State
Legislature has enacted Government Code sections pro-
viding for the adoption of these assessments for fire
suppression services provided by cities , counties and
special districts. The legal authority commences with
Section 5,0078 of that code .
-nine- {
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
The process for using the assessments consists of the
drafting of an ordinance following a model issued by the
State Fi e Marshal. The ordinance contains a uniform
schedule of rates based upon the type or use of property
.,.and the risk classification of the improvements on the
property]i The assessments must relate to the benefits to
be received by the property so assessed. The assessments
apply to most parcels within the district, however agri-
cultural lands are treated differently from others , under
the legal basis for the assessments .
A written report is filed containing a description of
each lot or parcel subject to the assessment, the amount
of the assessment for each parcel for the fiscal year, and
the basis and schedule of the assessments . The Clerk
receiving the filing causes a copy of the notice of filing
of the report and the time, date and place of a hearing
on the proposed assessments to be mailed to each parcel
owner, at least two weeks prior to a scheduled hearing.
Upon the completion of the hearing of objections or
protests ; the Board of Supervisors may adopt the asses-
sments , if it finds the valid protests to be less than
5% of the total amount of expected revenue .
If the amount of valid protests is more than 5%, the
assessment must be submitted to the district voters for
approval by a majority of those voting on the proposition.
(The assessment must be abandoned if the protest is
50% or more . )
The adopted assessments are collected along with the
annual property tax amounts for each parcel.
The legislation authorizing the assessments has a Jan-
uary 1 , 1988 "sunset" provision. Legislation to extend
that date is now under consideration in the State Senate .
As indicated in the earlier listing of methods of finan-
cing recommended, a total of $2,080, 000 ($416, 000 per
year) , to cover the hiring of 11 additional fire fighter
positions , is proposed to be realized from a Fire Sup-
pression ; Benefit Assessment during the five year period
starting �,with 1986-87.
I
{ -ten-
Riverview Five Year Plan Financing (con' t. )
Based on an estimated 31 , 500 existing dwelling units in
the Rive',rview Fire District, the ave ra e annual amount of
the assessment would be approximately 13 per residential
unit. There would be comparable rates adjusted for
., potential fire hazard for other types of property.
The assessment would need to continue indefinetly to
finance the 11 fire fighters after the end of the five
year period.
3. Other Alliternatives . In earlier reports on the subject of
fire service financing in Contra Costa County fire districts ,
lists of potential methods of funding have been included.
A number) of these , in reality, only related to some method
of borrowing, such as using a lease-purchase method for
gaining the funds to construct a new fire station, etc .
The problem with such methods is that they don' t raise
any new revenue for paying the annual costs ( interest
and redemption) of borrowing. The methods recommended in
this report all raise new revenue , which is precisely
what is needed, if the improvements listed in the district' s
Five Year Plan are to be realized .
One alternative that is available is a "special tax"
submitted to the voters of the district for approval by
a two-thirds vote of those voting on the measure (Govern-
ment Code Sec . 50075 et seq. ) . This , of course , could
be used to finance facilities and services under the
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Government Code
Sec . 53313 ( b) ) . However, there is no advantage to the
use of a "special tax" alternative , if the methods recom-
mended in this report receive adequate support from the
community.
I
This report was made possible by the assistance of the district ' s
management chiefs and other personnel , managers of the cities of
Antioch and Pittsburg and employees of the County of Contra Costa .
I wish to extend my personal thanks for their assistance and pro-
fess' al work.
Ro ert M. Nyman
Consult t