The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04.14.14 Work Session Packet City of Farmington Miss!i n Statement 430 Third Street Through team ork and cooperation, Farmington,MN 55024 the City of Far ington provides quality services that pr'serve our proud past and foster a ,romising future. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 14, 2014 6:30 p.m. Conference Room 170 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT LADDER TRUCK 4. BUDGET CALENDAR 5. ASSESSMENTS—CIP PROJECTS 6. ADJOURN PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session.All discussions shall be considered fact-fr •ing,hypothetical and unofficial critical thinking exercises,which do not reflect an official public positio . Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as t articulation of a formal City policy position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be •nsidered as a formal expression of the City's position on any given matter. Vehicle Committee Farmington Fire Department Agenda ❑ Introductions ❑ Why are we here? ❑ Needs Assessment ❑ How do we accomplish this task? ❑ Questions 1 Committee Members • Tim Pietsch, Chief • Jim Schmitz, Asst. Chief(secretary) • Justin Elvestad, Captain (co-chair) • Adam Fischer, Captain (co-chair) • Jason Greiner, Lieutenant • Matt Donnelly Why are we here? ❑ Educate stake holders on the current and future needs of Aerial Apparatus ❑ Describe options for these needs ❑ Establish a roadmap to assist stake holders in current and future decisions 2 Needs Assessment ❑ •What will be the new vehicle's primary function? O Ladder/Rescue,Firefighter egress,elevated waterway,Ae 'al operations,Fire suppression,Exposure protection,Ice Re cue, High/Low angle rescue ❑ •What other functions will the apparatus need to accomplish? o Backup engine,Mutual aid,Motor vehicle accidents,Ha Mat operations ❑ •What physical characteristics or restrictions are critical for the n w vehicle? o Must be designed to fit in current apparatus bay and still eet the needs of the City ❑ •What features are preferred,but not necessarily required on the ew vehicle? ❑ Two water turrets,built in rescue tools ❑ •How many firefighters will the apparatus normally need to carry' o 4-6 firefighters Needs Assessment ❑ •Are there special operating conditions that the vehicle must be suited for, such as steep inclines or a tight turning radius? o Private roads,Farm yards,Height restrictions ❑ •Are there special requirements for carrying equipment or powering equipment such as a generator or rescue tool? ❑ Generator,breathing air,portable rescue tools,ice/water rescue equipment,rope rescue equipment ❑ •What is the vehicle's projected activity level? o r"due on commercial/industrial,el due on residential/rescue/medical ❑ •What are the apparatus operator's qualification needs? o FFD members are FAO certified+Manufactures training,yearly continued training ❑ •How much funding is available for the apparatus purchase? o TBD 3 Current Aerial Ladder Situation ❑ Today • All Aerial Ladder Operations are fulfilled by Mutual Aid ❑ Includes Fire and Rescue Operations • Single family homes • Industrial • Commercial • Schools • Apartments/Senior living • Decontamination • Rescue Single Family Homes T. r 4 Industrial irwo z ,� °`44.\. • Commercial 7 i. h w.. i, milmon_ 5 Schools - diamorsawta....='ziz on.t . _ , - AMIE11.11111111.11111111 Apartments/Senior Living -#111111,' 4 t04. Ole 2101,''': •1:a - •—• . . . tesc' tiOke ,•*; 5.g m is le . * 1 , - 6 P Decontamination P 4 . . IP 4 ,., Rescue 1 Tp ' eeree a + ;� r, As w .F..: ; :i f Vii 1 a a y' ' �4'=—_. .. ' r v y ; n , 7 Aerial Apparatus Options • Elevated Waterway 2014 2019 ❑ Approx. $800,000 $960,000 e Ladder ❑ Approx. $z,000,000 $i,zoo,000 • Platform ❑ Approx. $1,zoo,000 $1,480,000 • Articulating Platform ❑ Approx. $1,500,000 $i,800,000 Elevated Waterway ❑ Pros • Least expensive ® May operate as Engine Co ❑ Cons s Does not meet current and future needs 8 ! Ladder ❑ Pros • Some Rescue operations • Elevated waterway • Firefighter egress ❑ Cons • Physically demanding to climb • Ladder weight restrictions Platform ❑ Pros • Elevated waterway • All Rescue operations • Firefighter egress • Precision operations • Versatility for operations • Firefighter safety ❑ Cons • Cost • Truck weight and Length 9 Articulating Platform ❑ Pros • Same as Platform • Below grade Rescue • Parapet walls ❑ Cons • Most Expensive Houston Ladder Rescue 10 ISO Defined Ladder Needs ❑ NUMBER OF NEEDED LADDER COMPANIES (NL): • Response areas with 5 buildings that are 3 stories or 35 feet or more in height,or with 5 buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm,or any combination of these criteria,should have a ladder company. • The height of all buildings in the city,including those protected by automatic sprinklers,is considered when determining the number of needed ladder companies. a When no individual response district alone needs a ladder company, at least one ladder company is needed if buildings in the city meet the above criteria. Questions ? 11 2015 Budget Calendar Date Task Forum TBD Insi:ht Bud:et Trainin: Before Ma 19 2015 Pa roll Information In out Online May 19, 2014 Legislature Adjourns—LGA amounts and levy limits, if any, should be known May 20(possibly Distribute 2015 Operating Budget Preparation Forms, including three years of Online earlier) actual(i.e.2011-2013 and first 4 months of 2014 June 2 Completed Operatint Bud:et Forms Submitted to Finance Online June 9 '4. ncil Work. : and Budget �uncil Worksho. July 14 Council Workshop to review Special Revenue, Debt,Capital Project and Council Enter.rise Fund Bud!ets Worksho. August 11 Final Review of Proposed General Fund, Special Revenue, Debt and Capital Council Project Fund Bud tets Worksho. Mid-to-Late Fiscal Disparities Amounts Available August August 19- David Vacation Sept 2 September 2 Preliminary budget set at City Council Meeting City Council Meetin On or before Submit Preliminary 2015 Levy to Dakota County September 15 November 1; Pro•*sod Final 20)5 General Fund and Debt Lev with Council Council Worksho. December 1 Truth In Taxation Hearing City Council ..t Final T �_ �;. ..�. d:et December 16 S. . F .12015 L- •• ". D. . is As of 4/9/2014 1:21 PM NNco /yc� City of Farmington 430 Third Street W. . Farmington, Minnesota ∎1 G4s ' 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899 44''"""°o* www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor,Councilmembers,City Administrator FROM: Kevin Schorzman,P.E., City Engineer SUBJECT: Assessments for CIP Projects DATE: April 14,2014 INTRODUCTION Over the past several years,Council and staff have worked together to develop a long-term Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)for the roads and infrastructure of the City. During the development of the plan, assessments were not included in the financing of the plan as this provided the most conservative approach to revenue to support the plan. The first project of the plan,the Akin Park Estates Rehabilitation Project is not being assessed and cannot be assessed due to the type of bonding that was used to finance the project. The second project of the CIP,the 195th Street Reconstruction project is also not currently anticipated to be assessed based on individual feedback from individual Councilmembers at the project open house. The third project,which may be accelerated to 2015 because of favorable bids on the Akin Park Estates project,will also not have the option to be assessed as it will be using funds from the Akin Park Estates bond sale. DISCUSSION Since 1992,the City's general policy related to assessments was to assess 35%of the project cost to benefitting properties. However,the ability to assess is also limited by State statute to no more than the increased value of the property due to the improvement. The 35%number has declined steadily since the 1990's, and on the Walnut Street project in 2010,the City was only able to assess 19%of the project cost based on the benefit appraisal. As the City's ability to assess project costs declines(35%to 19%),the proportion of the project being supported by the general tax base increases(65%to 81%). As noted above,revenue from assessments was not included in the development of the current CIP. This was done intentionally as it was the most conservative way to estimate revenues and it helps ensure that the CIP will not be affected by Council's decision of whether or not to assess a project. It was also not included as much of the revenue received from assessments is not available for project costs as it comes in installments over a long period of time which does not reduce the need to bond for a project. During the development of the CIP many points were discussed both supporting future assessments and supporting the elimination of assessments on CIP projects. Some of the pros and cons of assessing projects are listed on the following page: CIP Projects Assessments April 14,2014 Page 2 of 2 Benefits to the City for assessing a project- • Assessments collected will free-up future money in the CIP and might be able to be used to accelerate future projects(assessments do not free up money on a current project because money is needed to pay contractors when the work is done,and assessments come in over a period of time after the project is complete.) Benefits to the City for not assessing a project- • Projects remain on schedule and are completed when they should be rather than being delayed due to the monetary impact on specific properties(many projects over the years have been delayed because of pushback from project property owners related to having to come up with money to pay an assessment) • Less overall project cost due to the elimination of correspondence, newspaper ads, staff time, legal advice and the cost of benefit appraisals. (streamlined process) Benefits to the taxpayer for assessing the project- • Benefitting properties pay more(they are the group that gets assessed and they are part of the group that helps pay for the non-assessed portion through general property taxes)which reduces the overall cost supported by the general tax base. • Tax exempt parcels are still subject to assessments(churches, schools,Federal, State,and County owned properties,etc.)which reduces the overall cost supported by the general tax base. Benefits to the taxpayer for not assessing a project- • No"unanticipated"costs. (Don't have to come up with a fairly large sum of money to pay an assessment) • Federal tax benefit. (Property taxes are a deductible expense on Federal taxes while the assessment portion of total tax bill is non-deductible.) BUDGET IMPACT Choosing not to assess will not have any negative financial impact on the current long-term CIP. Choosing to assess will make funds available earlier in the plan,or reduce the overall property tax support of the plan. ACTION REQUESTED Discussion and consensus on whether or not to pursue assessments on future CIP projects. Respectfully submitted, Kevin Schorzman,P.E. City Engineer cc: file