Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0535.093October 7. 199.3 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California JOrNI FIRE STATION STrrDY Members of the Council: Report iil Brief . __ :,7' :'-. This report is an informational report and no Council action is necessary. This report is ir..tended to provide updated infm:mation regarding tne status of the feasibility study of jointly operating a fire station with the City of Mountain View. City of Mo~tain View staff will not be recommending the joint station at this time at a meeting of the Mountain View City Council Public Safety Committee on October S, 1993. BAckground On December 5, 1991 the Finance Committee directed staff to develop a multi-jurisdictional Fire Station Consolidation Plan with the officials of Mountain View, Los AltOB/ and Los Altos Hills (CMR:533 :91.). Much :z'esearch and many discussions between the staffs of all three cities have occurred over th~ past year and a half. The City of MOlmtain View staff has concluded that the potential response time improvement to the ~ountain View area north of Bayshore is not significant enough to s~pport a joint station recommendation at chis time. They find that the benefics do not outweigh the impacts of eliminating their rescue ~~ic, redeploying their aerial ladder truck company to a less desirable location, or the commitment of their financial r~sources so far out into the future isee attached memorandum) . Mountain View staff will continue to work with Palo Al to staff at evaluating the potential benefits to both jurisdictions by expanding automatic aid agreement a and the possibil ity of joint hazardous materials responses. In addition, staff continues to work with Los Altos and Menlo Park at exploring potential financial and service benefits by consolidating or sharing resources. CMR:5.35:93 • Respectfully sub _ted. ~~.-z ROBERT R. wALL Pin Chief tft!::: Aa.i.tant Pire Chi.f Attaclu'tent: CMR:535:93 ity MaDageT.' City of Mountain View Memorandum dated OCtobe:.' 1, 1993 .Joint Fire Station Study~ Staff Report, Fire Station Location Study, 1 '215/91 Finance Committee Minutes, 12/10/91 ,i '. <~ ...... '. ,~ On m<MOUNTt\JN VIEW CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEMORANDUM DATE: October 1. 1993 TO CITY COUNCIL PUBliC SAFElY COMMl1TEE Cha:rperson: Norman Shaskey Members: Robert Schatz, Mary<. Freelen, James Cochran (Alternate) FROM: Hugh Holden, FlIe Chief SUllJECT: JOINT FIRE STATION STUDY NOTICE OF MEETING The Mountain View City Council Public Safety Ccmmlttee will conve.'1e on Tuesd~y, October 5, 1993, at 7:30 p.rn. in the Plaza Conference Room, City Hall, 500 CastrOr Street, MOWltain View to discuss the Mountain View IPalo Alto join~ station study. AGENDA 1. Review of Background 2. Reyiew oi-1W.a1ysis and Finding' / ! / " 3 1"\ Conclusions and Recommendation to City Council I,~ gh G. Holden Chief cc: City COWl cil CM, ACM, CA, DCM, PCDD Union President, Local 1965 lAFF Palo Alto Fire Chief, Palo Alto Cily Manager San Jose Mercury, The Voice .. Town Crier " . ' ~ .. . - .:-1' -.:. ----"'--''-------'-'-....:.:....~-'---= ·-- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: o CITY OF MOUNTAINVIEVV MEMORANDUM September 27, 1993 Kevin C. Duggan. City lV.anager Hugh G. Hold en, Fire Chief JOINT STATION STUDY RECOMMENDATION We do not re;:ommend the City of P;'!o Alto and tho! City of Mountain View jointly own and operatE: a fue staticn at this time. BACKGROUND On March 17, 1992 the City Council adopted the recommendation of the Council Public Safety Committee authorizing Fire Department staff to study the feasJ.oility of a shared fire station with the City of Palo Alto. After month, of negotiations, both cities a~ that the most feasible consolidation plan would include building. new slation located at a site near the intersection of Charleston and San Antonio Roads. The station would house a Palo Alto Engine Company staffed with PaID Alto firefighters (3 firefighters X 3 shifts = 9 fire£ghters), a Mountain View Truck Company (Aerial Ladder Truck) jointly staffed by Mountain View and Palo ,o.Jto firefighters (3 Mountain View firefighters and one Palo Alto frrefrghter X 3 s.!tifts = 12 firefighters), a Hazardous Materials Van and an unstaffed Reserve Engine. The Hazaxdous Materials Van would be sWfed by the same firefighters/Hazardous Mater,aJs Technicians assigned to 1.."" Truck Company. The Mountain View Truck and Haza.rdous Materials Van would come from our Fire Station 4-on Whisman Road. The PaID Alto Engine Company would rome from Palo Alto's Statier. 4 on Middlefield Road. The City of Mountain View would realize savings by eliminating its Rescue Unit now operating out of Station 1. In order for staff to recommend a joint station, results of the study were to conclude the following: 1) Level of service would be maintained Of improved; 2) The City would witness a return on its investment within 5 years (the 5 yea.r criterion was set by Palo Alto). ~ I " o ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ~nse 01 pabiHties There is no IP.al advantage to locating our Aerial Ladder Truck at a joint station near San Antonio and Charleston Roads. Wnile it w0wd give us better response times to the North of Bayshore Area, this predominantly industrial area has a low life and property fire risk due to incorporation of automatic fire sprinklers and/or fire detection systerJ".s in mos_~ buildings. However, it would extend response times to other densely popula.ted areas with non-fire sprin.klered residential and ii"'l.stitutional buildings. The Aerial Ladder Truck is Olrrentiy located at Station 4. It is planned to move it into the new Station I when constn!ction has been completed. This will pllt the Aerial Ladder Truck in the heart of the City where reasonable respo~ times can be achieved for all of Mountain View and service to the highest life a."1d property risk occupancies will be significantly improved. The Rescue Unit, which would be eliminated in the joint Mountain View/Palo Alto Frre Station plan, responds to approximately 1,200 cills per year or 28% of all Fire Department responses. Fuefighte!'S staffing the unit are also responsiblE for fire inspections. If the Rescue Unit were to be eliminafed, this workload would be shifted to Engine Companies. The Rescue Unit is dispatched to every building fire incident in the City along with the Aeri.al Ladder Truck Compa.'lY, two Engine Companies and a Battalior, Chief resultin! in a complexnent of twelve Fire Department personnel at fire scenes. Reducing this number of staff is not advisable for safety and operational effectiveness reasons. Therefore, eliminating the Rescue Unit would require a third Engine Company to be dispatched to every fire which in turn would reduce the level of protection available for simultanecus alarms and increase our reliance on mutual aid at a time when adjacent cities have reduced their mutual aid commitment to us. In addition, lhe joint Engine Company we proposed to be lccated at the joint station, while capable of improving response times to the North of Bayshore Area, will not have the advantagl2' of central location that our Rescue UnH currently has. This change would mea."1 delayed responses to the higher risk areas of our Gty. Fiscal Impact All alternatives to building a new station were discounted in the cou:rse of this study. Staff examined the passfull; ty of converting an existing commercial structure to meet our needs. Public Works staff from both cities concluded there would be no ccst savings involved with this alternative. Using existing fire stations in either jurisdiction was not viable because of unacceptable increases in response times. 2 ___ /0 '"" , :. •... Building a new station capable of housing a 1luck Company, Hazardous Materials Yan, E.'lgine Company and a Reserve Engine would require a substantial investment for both dlies. Staff estimat.,. it would cost each jurisdiction $1)100,000 (total of $3,600.000> based on experience with our new Station 1 and inflationary factors. nus estimated .. -os! does not include any potential land acquisition costs which may be Incurred by the city in which the property would reside. Analysis of potentlal savings from a reduction of six fuefighrer positions revealed it would take at least seven j'ears before the City of Mountain View would regain its initlal investment of $1.8 million dollars (see Attachment I). CONg.llSION The potentlal response time improvement to the North of B.yshore Area is not significant enough to support a joint station r<'COmmendation. The benefits do not outweigh the impacts of eliIrlnating our Rescue Unit, redeploying our Aerial Ladder Truck Comp~y to a less desirable location, a..T1d committing our financial resources v.:ith a return so far out into the future. Results of this study do not ill anyway preclude us from pursuing Ibe benefits derived from shared resources betw ... ..n jurisdictions. The possibility of joint hazardous materials response with Palo Alto is stili being considered. We a,-e also looking at expandi.-,g our automatic aid agreement with Palo Alto to cover medical aid as "{eIJ as fire responses. While not as aggressive as a joint station, they are ~ns.chat promise to deliver better service to our dtizens without increased costs. ~j~L1i~l ',ugh G. Holden­ Fire Chief ~(LA 3 Attach ment 1 ..... _ '7 JOINT-STATION SAVINGS SUMMARY Assumptions: Salary Savings: 6 Firefighter Positions Inflation Rate: 4 'Yo" Initial Expenditure: $1,BOO,Ooo In 1993-94 Salary SavIngs Beginning: 1996-97 Discount Rate Year Recover Inltia! Investment 6% 7 7% B 8% B • Savings were also calculated using 5% and 6% innaiionarl rates. Savings figures increased slightiy; however, time of i!1vestmer.t recovery did not gner significantly. JOI~ATION ANAlvslSiOETAIt.EO SPR~ SALARY SAVINGS BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 EXPEN DITURE IN FY 1993-94 6% DISCOUNT RATE 4% iNFLAT10N $1.BOO.OOO 6FIREfiGHTERS 1 $0 0.943 (Sl.GOn.OOO) 2 $0 0.890 (SI.800,000) 3 $465.5110 $391,020 0.840 ($1.408.980) 4 $484.120 $383,423 0.792 ($1.025.557) 5 $503.485 $376,103 0.747 ($649,454) 6 $523.624 $3E9,155 0.705 ($280,299) ____ L _______ ~!?1.4,,~~~ _______ -':1HJ:1~ ________ O"~ ~L ________ $_B_'"'!1.0_. 8 $566.352 $355.103 0.627 $436.942 9 $589.006 $34a.692 0.592 $7a5.634 10 $612,566 $341,812 0.558 $1,127.446 11 $637,069 $335.735 0.527 $1.463.181 12 $662.552 $329.288 0.497 $1.792.469 13 $589,054 $323.166 0.469 $2.115,636 14 $716,616 $316.744 0.442 $2,432.380 15 $745.280 $310.782 0.417 $2,743,162 16 $775,092 $305.S86 0.394 $3.048,548 17 $806,095 $299.061 0.371 $3.347,60~ 18. $838.339 $293.419 0.350 $3.641,028 19' $871.873 $288.590 0.331 $3.929.618 20 $906,748 $282.905 0.312 $4.212.523 2 t $943.018 $277.247 0.294 $4.489,770 22 $980.738 $272.645 0.278 $4.762,416 23 $1.019.96a $267.232 0.262 $5.029,647 24 $1.060.767 ~262.009 0.247 $5.291,656 25 $1.103,197 $257.045 0.233 $5.548,701 26 $1.147,325 $252.'12 0.220 $5.801,113 27 $1.193,21a $246.996 0.207 $6.048,109 28 $1.240.947 $243.226 0.196 $6.291.335 29 $1.290.585 $238,758 0,185 $5.530.093 30 $1.342,208 $233.544 0.174 $6.763.6~7 · ~ .. -··1 ".~!jo .. -'. JOINTi.OON ANAL VSISOETAILED SPREADS:~ SALARY SAVINGS BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 EXPENDITURE IN FV 1993-94 7% DISCOUNT RATE 4% lNFLA T10N $1.800,000 6 FIAEFIGMTEP.S f:lli~n\$1,.0Ui'I;iSA'ViNGSP'·:·PRfSENT'IAllJE "!WS1"" ''1,: ",SAVlNGS'w·d 1 $0 $0 0.935 1$1,800,000) 2 $0 $0 0.873 1$1,800,000) 3 $465.500 $379.S48 0.816 1$1.420,152) 4 $484,120 $369,384 0.763 1$1,050,768; 5 $503,485 $358,985 0.713 1$691,784) 6 $523,624 $348,734 0.666 1$343,050) 7 $544.569 $339,267 0.623 (i3,783) ____ ~ ________ ~~ '1.6A~~ _______ ~n~,.? 1 Z ________ oc~~ ~ ________ E'-5~~3.3_ . 9 $599,006 $320,419 0.544 $646,253 10 $612,566 $311,184 0.508 $957,436 11 $637,069 $302,608 0.475 $1,260,044 12 $662,552 $294, i 73 0.444 $1,554,217 13 $689,054 $285,957 0.415 $1,840,174 14 $716,616 $278,047 0.388 $2,118,221 15 $745,280 $269,792 O.36~ $2,388,013 16 $775,092 $262.756 0,339 $2,650,769 17_ $806,095 $255.532 0.317 $2,906,301 18, $838,339 $248,148 0.296 $3,154,449 19 $871,873 $241,509 0.277 $3,395,958 20 . $906,748 $233.941 0.258 $3,629,899 21 ~943,018 $228,210 0,242 $3,858,109 22 $980,738 $221.647 0,226 $4,079,756 23 $1,019,968 $215,213 0.211 $4.294.969 24 $1,060,767 $208,971 0.197 $4,503,940 25 $1.103.197 $202,988 0.184 $4,706,929 26 $1,147,325 $197,340 0.172 $4;904,269 27 $1,193.218 $192,108 0.161 $5,096,377 28 $1,240.947 $186,142 0,150 $5,282,519 29 $1,290.565 $181,972 0,141 $5,464.491 30 $1,342,208 $175,829 0.131 $5.640,320 SAlARY SAViNGS BEGINNING ASCAL YEAR 1996-97 EXPENOITURE IN FY 1993-94 $% DISCOUNT RATE 4% INFlATION $1,800,000 SFlRERGHTERS 1 $0 $0 0.926 ($1,800,OCO) 2 $0 $0 0.857 lSI,800,000) 3 $465,S.QlI $369,607 0.794 ($1,430,S93) 4 $484,120 $355,628 0.735 ($1,074,56S) 5 $503,485 $342,873 0.681 {$731 ,692) 6 $523,624 $329,883 0.630 ($401 ,806) 7 $544,569 $311,484 0.583 ($84,225) a $566,352 $305,830 0.540 $221,5D5 -----9--------$5S9,OOS-------$294:s03--------0~500--------$5-1-(008-' 10 $612,566 $283,618 0.463 $799,627 11 $637,069 $273,303 0.429 $1,072,929 12 $662,552 $263,033 0.397 $1,3:>E,962 13 $689,054 $253,572 0.368 $1,589,534 14 $716,616 $243,649 0.340 $1,833,183 15 $745,260 $234,763 0,315 $2,067,947 16 $775,092 $226,327 0.292 $2,294,273 17 $806,095 $217,646 0.270 $2,511 ,91S 16, $638,339 $209,565 0.250 $2,721,504 19' $871,873 $202,274 0.232 $2,923,779 20 $906,743 $194,951 0.215 $3,118,729 21 $943,018 $187,660 0.199 $3,30e,390 22 $980,738 $180.456 0.184 $3,486,846 23 $1,019,968 $173,395 0.170 $3,660,240 24 $1,060,7S7 "67,fj01 0.158 $3.827,841 25 $1,103,197 $161,067 0.146 $3.988,90a 26 $1,147,325 $154.889 0.135 $4,143,797 27 $1,193,218 $149,152 0.125 $4,292,949 28 $1,240,947 $143,950 0.116 $4,436.899 29 $1,290,585 $13S,093 0.1~7 $4,574,~92 30 $1,342,208 $132,879 0.099 $4,707,870 I I I December 5, 1991 HONOP~LE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, Californ~a Attention: Finance committee FIRB STATION LOCATION STUDY Members of the council: Report in Brief This report responds to the Finance Committee's request of March 26, 1991 for additional information concp-rning t~c wPalo Alto Fire Department Fire Station Location Studyn 4 On ~urther study I star! has estimated that it will take approxi­ mately five years from the date of the first expense incurrec (1993-94) for expenditure savings to offset capital costs to implement the recolllillended proposaL After the relocations are. paid f~rl the~e is an ongoing savings to the City of nine positions, or over $600,000 per year. Staff racommends that Council direct staff to develop a multi-jurisdictional Fire Station Consolidation Plan with the officials of Mountain view~ Los Altos and Los Alt~s Rills. :S.c:kgr-oun4 The wPalo Alto Fire Derartment Fire Station Location Studyb (CMR 170~91, March 21, 1991) found that service levels could be maintained while reducing ongoing expenditures by a combination of relocating and ccnsolidating tire stations with Los Alto;:;. and Mountain View as contained in the St",Jdy's alternative nWl1l:ler 4. The Finance Committee reqt..;.z.sted that staf.! investigate five areas: 1. Actual pot.ential locatic.ns for the proposed stations; 2. Improvement of response time to Greer Park; CMR:533 :91 ---'----.-- 3~ Financial informatian on cost of building new stations; 4. Sample of elements to be contained in joint po~ers aut~orlty documents; and !. Ider.tify the timing and mechanism for implementing the proposed relocation plan. Statf further proposes two additional amendments to Alternative Number Four. The _first is to delay the relocation of the Alma Street fire station to a site near the civic center because of lack of cost sa. .... ings. The second is to continue to operate the Hanove.r Street fire station by reallccation of staff from existing stations. The amended alt~rnative number 4 proposes that Palo Alto build and operate a consolidated Fire Station (Numbe~ 9} with Los Altos by moving a portion of the existing fire suppression resources services from HanDver Street to the proposed site on Arastradero Road near Page Mill Road. The Hanover Statio~ would remain open and &erve as the Emergency Medical Services (paramedic) and Hazardous Materials/Response Center. In addition~ Palo Alto's Station Number 4 would be moved to the 800 block of Charleston Road ana consolidated with Mountain View's Station Number J. The property currently occupied by Stat.ion llumber 4 would be. sold~ Attachment One shows the locations of the existinq and proposed fire stations. QiS9U'Bioll 1. Identify potential sites for Fire stations 4 a~d 9. Staff has identified an area as a potential site for Fire station Number 4 and a specific site in the 800 block of Charleston Road has been used to calculate response times. The site is for sale, but at the time this report was prepared~ the owne~s ~ere negotiat­ ing a possible sale. As indicated earlier in this ~eport~ the suppression services from Station Number 2 would be relocated to staff the consolidated station N~ber 9 at a site on Arastradero Road in Palo Alto's 77- acre parcel. 2 ~ Improve response time: fro1rL Station Number 4 to Greer Parle. Response time calculations from the Charleston location have been analyzed and the service is improved for Palo Alto when compared to the studyls previous location at Middlefield and San Antonio Roads. CMI\; 533; 91 2 .. / o Specifically, the area of Colorado Street trom Ross Road tc West Bayshore and Dry Creek shows ioproved service times from the sao blocK of Charleston Road. In addition, the Charleston location provides better access to the Ba~"shore Free.,.'ay and the expandinq Shoreline Industrial Park area of Mountain View. 3. Calculate the cost of and the number of years it will take to pay for relocating the tire stations. If the consolidation of both fire stations 'Iolith the respective cities were to take place, it WOl,.;,ld take approximately five year-s for the operational savings to pay for the investment required (see Attachment Two}. The savings ",",ould begin ... hen the stations are consolidated + However, the five-year payoff period begins in 1993- 9.:1 when the first capital expenditure is incurred. Several assumptions and estimations were made to arrive at this conclusion. These ar-e listed in Attachment Tt, ee. Whenever there was a range of figures available, the most conservative estimates were made, i.e~, the highest costs for building ne~ stations was used and the lowest cost for the sale of property vas used. Prelimina!"y discussions were held 'With the Fir-e Chiefs and City Manaqers of Mountain Viev, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills concerning the feasihility of consolidating fire stations. The parties concerned are amenable t~ continuing Qiscussions on a more formal basis. In additionj there is growing interest in using the proposal contained in this report as the initial step to develop a plan leading to full consolidation of the three fire departments where even greater savings a~e possible. As per these discussions, the respective cities would each contribu~e half of the calculateo building costs for the fire st~tion that they would share. Without 'this cont.ribution, the time to pay for the proposal would be extended to nine years~ It is not assumed that either Los Altos or Mountain View would make any contribution towards the purchase of the property or the preparation of the property for construction because both new stations would be located within Palo Alto. staff proposes that one engine company, Engine 2 from Fire station 2 (Hanover Station) I woulQ ~e moved to the new station on Arastradero Road and replaced by relocating the e~isting Hazardous Materials response unit~ R~scue !# currently located at Fire Station Number 1 (Alma Station). The paramedic unit would remain at the Hanover Station. This would provide improved hazardous materials response services to the Stanford Research Park~ In aclditiofl, there is no apparent economic benefit LO closing the Hanover Station. When it was as built, Palo Alto ancl stanford University agreed the property would be used by the City for municipal parposes or it. reverts to the university, ana cannot therefore ~e sold by the City. CMR: 533: 91 3 4: ~ Identify the elements that would be contained in a J"oint Powers Agreement. Implementa.tion of Alternative NUMber 4 "..i11 require the development ot joint powers agreements between Palo Alto/Los Altos and Palo Alto/Mountain View to purchase, construct, staff ar.d operate two fire stations as described in Alternative Number 4. Staff has researched, with the assistance of the City Attorney's Office, the follo~inq elements as likely to be included in such an agreement~ Leqal Elements: o The agreements would meet the guidelines set forth in the California Government Cod~, Section 6500 ~Joint Exercise of Powers". o In addition, the agreement DlUSt. follow any further constraints established by local requirements for each jurisdictiol"'. based upon local charter or general laW' requirements. ~in8ncial Elements~ o The aqreement must contain a clear deSignation of which party will handle the finances. o An accounting and auaiting process must be described in the aqre'S:ment. o The parties of the agreement can be reimbursed in the form of goods, services, money or a combination of these elements. However, the agreement must clearly identify the form of reimbursement intended and what percentages would be paid by each party. o The agree"ment must identify how capita.l costs will be shared. Alternative Number 4 may include acquisition and any preparation of land, building construction J permits and any p~blic environmental studies or review require­ ments. The exact nature of the agreement 'Would be subject to negotiations between the parties. o Operational costs of the building including all mainte­ nance and insurance would be included~ o Equipment values, maintenance and replacement costs for all shared equipment would be contained in the aqr8ement~ Personnel Elements: o Personnel and staffing procedures ~ould be necessary to clarify performance, certifications, training, officer or CMR:533:91 4 • pOGition equivale~ts( and recognition that the agr~ement had not inter.ded to Equate any differences in salarj', benefits O~ labor contract language. It is also recog­ nized that some issues may arise which. could r-equire discussions with the bargaining units. o Reporting relationships and stanQards tor employee conduct both for emergency and non-emergency activities. Liability Elements: o The ~greement would include all insurance coverage which would take into consideration th~ self-insurance of one or more of the parties. o The agreement lr.'ould address issues of liability in ~egard to handling third party claims and industrial injuries~ Se~/ice Level Elements: o Service levels and performance standards would be identified in the agreement. o Training criteria and certificatior.s, as applicable, would be identified. Terms of Agreement and Disposition: o The terms of agreement stating length, renewal and termination ~ould be clearly statej. o Provisions for disposition of jointly held assets would be identified in the agree~ent. 5. Identify the timing and mechanism for implementing the proposed relocation plan. The implementation of the proposed fire station relocation plan is subject to a collaborative agreement between the partiCipating agencies. For the purpcses of this report, staff suggests the follo~inq four process phases: 1) Agreements; 2) Acquisi­ tion/Design; 3) Construction; and 4) consolidated operations. The proposed time line is attached (Attachment Four). Agreement Phase: o Establishment of a Fire Station Relocation Task Force with representatives from the City of Palo Alto, Mountain view; Los Altos/LOS Altos Hills. Target date: February 15~ 1992~ CMR:S33:91 5 '- o Review Alternative Number ~ and make 2lJl'ler:.dr.;ents as needed. and prepare a consensus draft oper-a~ional and implementa­ tion plan for presentation to the respective City and Town Councils for: conceptual approval anci co:ruments. Target date: July 1992. o pending the development of various staffing options, some personnel issues may be sUbject to weet and confer with affected employee groups~ As appropriate, this proceal.!re may occur during this phase or at a later date prior to commence~ent of operation3. o Receive input from community interest groups as needed and m,,'ke amendments to the operational and implementation plan. Present final plan t~ the respective city and Town Councils for QPproval~ Target date: Oecembe~ 1992~ Acquisition/Design Phase~ o Locate and negotiate the acquisition of property for Station Number 4. Funding to be included in the 1993-94 inte~im budget through a Budget .~endment Ordinance. o Target date to begin: December 1992 Target date to complete: July 1993 Desi qn Fire Stations Number 9 and 4. includea in 1993-94 elP budget. Target date to begin: July 1993 Target Date to complete: June 1994 Project Review and Constr~ction Phase: Fund ing to be o project review and Constructio" phase of the jOint fire stations in lower Foothills and in South Palo Alto. Funding to be included in the 1994-95 elP bUdget. Target date to begin process: July 1994 Target date to complete: August 1995 Consolidated operations Phase; o staff 'Will explore the possibility of joint staffing prior to the co~pletion of construction of the new fire stations. CMR:533:91 6 Ad~itional Issues There are two adclitional issues that will need to be addressed before final fire station mergers with Los Altos and Mountain View occur. First, the Arastradero prcperty ~ill ~eed to be reloned from Dpen space to a use to facilitate a fire station. Secondly, the area that has been identified as feasible for Fire station Number 4 may have some toxic contamination. Depending on the location j staff may recommend that a level one hazardo'lls materiaJ.s analysis be undertaken. No cost estimate for this cleanup was added to the breakeven calculation. The current owner is responsible for the contamination or any future clean-up. This issue would have to be carefully assessed during any discussions leading to the City's acquiring property in the area. Recommeildation Based on yearly cost savings of over $600,000 per year beginning in 1999-2000, statf recommends the Council direct staff to develop a tr!ulti-jurisdl.ctional Fire Station consolidation Plan ~i th the Officials of Mountain View. Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. This Consolidatio:l Plan 'Would be based on the concept outlined in Altern~tive Number 4. as amended, of the Palo Alto Fire Department Fire Station Location Study. Respectfully sllb~itted, ", 0-, r.,.it H~,-, \"'-'7*'1'"1; VIRGINIA HARRINGTON Senior Financial Analyst 'fl .. / 1." ~yc~ .. ~~ ---' <-.-r"c:?-c \, _____ _ ROBERT WALL Fire Chief o j-l.~ L( t~C EM IL HARRI SON Oirector opi~ance r 0" ~ '-~~--­ WILLI!'J1 ZANER City ,Manager cc: Los Altos City Man~ge,r, Dianne Gershuny Mountain view City Manager, Kevin Duggan Los Altos Fire Chief, Richard Lundrum Mountain View FiI"e Chief, Hugh Holden International Association of Federated Fire Fighters Local 1319, Anthony spitaleri, President Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Stanford Research Park committee StanfoI"d Public Safety Department, Chief Marvin Herrington Related Staff Reports: CMR:170:91 CHR:S33:91 7 COSTS COSTS BENEFITS BENeFITS .... tt\ ATTACHMENTlWO .0 ARE s'M10N AELOCA TlON CALCUt.A TION (I 9-92 Oo~ Al::Iandon & Prepare rG/' Ni)W Use ".5 Pvrch.ase Property '993 Prap.are PTOI)trty lOt Construc:.tiO/"l 19 .. DeiI;n Haw Station ,m ConsIruc= Nft'Sla'lien '995 Sale of Propeny 1995 Contrit.l",i~t from City $baling Building 1995 FIRE S1 A TlON .. 50 .0 •• $200,000 .$1,340,000 $1,540.000 00 S77Q,OOoJ sno.ooo BENEFT"rn MINUS COSTS '995 (!77'O,OOO) YEARlY SAVJNGSTO CITY OF PALO ALTO 1993-94 '" '994-95 ., 1995-96 $2S0,49S 1996-97 S294.!528 1997-SS $306.291 19ge-.99 S324,7a'! 1999-00 5340,954 2000-0' $357,B52 NI.A4BER OF YEARS TO MAKE UP DEFICIT FROM FIRST EXPENOITURE OF IroICINEY (1993-94) 4.6 (1) e.as..cr 01\ an $sl1mate 01 a COS1 $5.2..50 De, squa'e 1001 (2) Based on an 8$lirnaled s.aJe prICe oj .$34. 75 per SQuare root. ,' .. F:RE ST A Tl ON .. $6{1,OOO S1,25{),OOO (1l ? $210,000 $1,37C,000 $2,900,000 .$937,656 (2; $790,000 :51,n7,556 {$1 ,1 72,344) $0 $0 $2BO,499 S294.,52S ,JOe ,291 .$.324,720 $340,954 $357,(1;92 ••• TOTAl $4,440,000 $2.,497,B56 (,1 .942 ,344) 00 $0 S555,03O $59:3.292 $621 ,o~, 6 .$654, T1 0 :&685,813 $720,931 5.' • ATTACHME~T THREE ASSUMPTIONS o The calculations have beeJ'l. adjusted for inflation using 1992 as a base year ~nd an inflation rate of 5 percent. o When calculating the benefits minus the costs for-this project~ it .... as assumed that the.r:"e would be no equipment savings unless both parts of the proposal were ~ndertaken. If this were the case, the City ~ould require one less engine in future years. - o The total salary and bu.ilding maintenance savings to the City have been recluced by 30.3 percent to refle.ct the current joint service revenue rei:;nbursement agreement fer fire service.s betwe&n the city and Stanford University. Operational Savings o Operational savings 1.ri 11 pay for the project and are re.alized throuqh retirement.. This assumes that an employee will retire upon reaching retirement age (55) ~ Retirement age will be reached by 10 employees in 1994-95. The calculation assumes that three Fire Fighters, three Fire Apparatus operators and three Fire captains will retire from the work force~ 'I'he differences in salary between titles and what year p~rsonnel in each title retire are not taken into account in this calculation. Salary used in calculations is the top ~tep of the Compen;ation Plan for each title~ A benefit rate o~ 57 percent was used~ Real Estate and construction Costs o It is estimated that a 24,000 ft square lot would be required for Fire Station 4. In the area identified as the optimum location for station 4 property values range betwe.en $40 and $50 per square foot or between $960,000 and $~j260,OOO for the lot size required. There is no fa~tor for the cost required to demolish any existing structure and prepare ~hatever property is purchased in this calculation~ o The current piece of property on Which Fire station .. is located Wuuld be sold and could be divided into three single family residential lots of 9;000 square feet that would sell for between $30 and $40 per square foot. Therefore, the city Would realize between $937,600 and $1,190,000 from the sale of the property that houses station 4. o The capital costs for Fire Station 2 and Fire Statior. .. ~ere estimated by the City's Public Works Depar-tment. The property on which Fire Station 4 is located would have to have prepared a new use, which will cost $60,000 for removing the existing CMR:533:91 1 .. , ,.' .' • #" -.' ,.; --.. ~ . building, existing hardscape and underground tank. This does not include any unknown factors. The cost to design and build a new station is approximately $1,580,000. o It ~~uld cost approximately $1,540,000 to design and construct a new Fire Station 2 on Arastradero Road. There vill be no need for capital expenditures at the Hanover site of Station Nwnber 2. o No costs for furnishing the new fire stations or relocation of the new stations have been included. CMR:SJJ:91 AnACHEMENTFOUR FIRE STATION RELOCATION STAFF REPORT nMEUNE 1. AGREEMarT establiSh task 10I'C8 with M!)un!ain View, lo& AJlosIL~ Al:os Hills Dfaft operation and implamenlafion ptan 101' r85;)eCltve Ciry and Town Qlur.cils. Receive imput lrO'Tl community ar.d make amendments to plan. Pre"Ser1! fir'lal plan to CIty and Town Councils. 2. ACOOISrTJOHiOESIrGN T AAG ET DATE: BEG IN PROCESS: COMPL8E PROCESS. Desion Station 2 and Stalioo 4. BeGIN PROCESS: COMPlETE P~OCESS: 3. CONSTRIJCTJQN PHASE CMtstr...c:tion. BEGIN PROCESS: COMPLETE PROCESS: 4. CONSOUOA. TEO OPEARA nONS PHASE Begin joill1 $Wling 01 new Station 2. and S1alio~ 4. STATiON ,2lSTATION 4. --- Fabruary 15. 199~ July 1992 Oecember 1992 Decemtlitr 1992 July 1993 JLJ~J' 1993 June 1994 July 199>4 August 1995 Septt!mber 1995 FINANC~COMMITT~ MINUTES 1. Fire Station Location study special Meeting Dece~er lO, 199~ 2. Additional survey Informatior. on Real Property conveyance Tax 3. Business License Tax 4. LandscapejLightinq Assessmer.t District 5. Oral communica~ions 2 9 6. Discussion of Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas 28 Adjournment at 10:02 p.m. 9 10 " .. " .. " Council ~ember Cobb called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto r California. PRESENT: Cobb, Kniss, Levy, McCo;"rn {arrived at 7:17 p.m.) ABSENT: None 1. Fire Station Location Study Fire Chief Robert Wall pointed out a few items in the sta.ff report {CMR:S33:91) which needed emphasis. The fire chiefs and city managers of the cities involved net to discuss the proposal and indicated a growing interest. There was also interest in a full­ scale conselidation. In the earlier report, the fire station in the Research Park, station No.2; was designed to be closed, but the plan had been modified. The priIilary reason was the importance of the Research Park as a service center. Council Member Levy asked tor a defL'1ition of "service center." Chief Wall said a service center was a fire station. The proposal was to retain the operation of the Research Park station as a paramedic center and hazardous materials response unit~ The financial analysis showed no benefit in the closure of Station No. 2 because if it were closed, the land ~ould revert back to Stanford University. Also, the response area highlighted in the previous report concerning the Greer Park neighborhood improved with the current proposal and proposed relocation site at thE: Charleston Road site. A typ~raphical error on Attachments 2 t 3, and 4 where Fire Station No. ~ was mentioned should be station No.9, the lower foothills station. Council Member Levy asked about Attachment 2 which stated no yearly savings in the .first couple of years with increased savings in the later years. He asked if the reason was the number of years to complete the project. Chief Wall said yes. Senior Financial Analyst Virginia Harringto~ said the savings were the result of attrition of firefighters through retirement. Council Member Levy said the stations would not be available until 1995, and a 4 pe~cent inflation factor ~as used. Ms. Harrington said a 5 percent factor was used. Council Member Levy the calculation. facilities. asked if any operating costs were left O'.lt of He often found rent was not imputed to Chief wall said the report was fairly comprehensive. 12/10/91 FH': 2 Finan=e Director Emily Harrison said there was an unknown factor involving the site acquired; hazardous ~aterials cleanup could be required with the Charleston Road site. Chief W~11 said the nature of the report could be refined to develop an agreement, with professionals ~o assist. Council Member Levy asked if there were extra costs connected 'With personnel retirement. Chief Wall said costs were reflected in the report, and he did not visualize further co~ts. Council M~mber Levy asked if Mountain view and Los Altos would own half the facilities but not the land. Chief Wall said yes. Council Member Levy asked if the rationale ",'as the land was in the city of Palo Alto's limits~ Chief Wall said yes. Council Member Levy queried whether Palo Alto would pay for the land if something were being done in Mountain View. Ms. Harrison said the decision was made to facilitate flexibility at a future date should the city decide to do something else with the site. Council Member Levy asked who owned the land~ Ms~ Harrison said Palo Alto owned the land~ Council Member Kniss thouqht the idea was superb and gave the City a number of opportunities for saving money and a great deal of flexibility. She asked how the two groups would function in a way which was comfortable for bo~h groups. Chief Wall said those 'Woult! be negotiated issues. Although thE:!' stations would be jointly operated, one city ~ould operate and statf a station while the other city pai~ its share of operating costs. The other op~ion would be for one city to staff a station for a period of time and the other city to staff the next year~ Those kinds of issues would be worked out during disc'Ussions. It was even possible for beth cities to staff a station at the same timer but it ~ould be the most diffic~lt to manage~ Council Member Kniss was concerned w.ith the location of the Arastradero station which would he rezoned from open spac~ status~ She asked for jus~ification for the location, if it was critical to have a station in that location, and if there was an alternative. Chief Wall said there we~e alternatives. staff attempted to locate site-specific locations based on the criteria of reasonableness, economics, and response time. In the lower foothills r Los Altos 12/10/91 FIN: 3 ., -' .... o Hills and the Los Altos Hills Fire District owned land for future tire stations Which were available but were not ideal locations far a joint operation~ There was the possibility of the availability of another more feasible locati~n. The report was very theoretical. council Member K~iss said location was one of her greatest concerns~ The remainder of the report ~as very intriguing as far as the cost containme~t outlined. She was concerned about putting all the parts together and making the plan ~o~x. council Member cobb referenced the improvement of response time to Greer Park and asked if the refer~nce actually m~ant the neiqhborhood. Chief Wall said yes~ Council Member Cob~ asked about the delayed relocation of the Alma street station because of lack of cost savings (page 2, CMR~S33 :91). He said "delay" and iIIlack of cost savings" seemed incongruous and asked if the relocation would ever occur~ Chief Wall said .sta.t.t was unable to arrive at an appropriate location in the downtown area for an adequate recommendation. The cost of land was high, and moving the Alma street Station to the downtown area would not reduce perscnnel~ It would only imp~ove response til!le. Council Member Cobb suggested 'Wording W'hich 'Would focus more. on rasponse time, with appropriate recommendations for moving. He asked for identification of the property on "Che 800 block of Charleston and asked if the City did not purchase the property, what the status of the proposal would be~ Manager of Real Es~ate Bill Fellman said the property was a two­ story building for sale at 844 Charleston Road with a vacant lot across the street from it on the west side on the Palo Alto side of San Antonio Road~ The property was used in the study to facilitate an estimate of property values. Council Member Cobb was concerned about areas which had poor response time in the map provided. Tbe Charleston Road location would eliminate the poor response time a~ea, which he thought was an important consi-:1eration. He also asked whether the Eichler bo~es at the south end of town normally served by that station were then at hiqher risk with a joint station with Mountain View and the possible Shoreline location~ Chief Wall said no; in the. situation described, if the station nearest the Greer Park area was busy on a call, a secondary station would be on-call as a backup. When a primary station was not avai1able, a secondary station covered the area~ Council Member Cobb said discussions concerning the possibility of joint staffing prior to completion of construction of the stations 12/10/91 FIN, 4 ,," / seemed a little late~ He thought discussions should begin sooner than that~ Chief Wall said the discussions would begin. An agreement would be entered. into after -which there would be a long process for construction. Consolidation of staffing should be accomplished as quickly as possible, even prior to completion of the station. council Kember Cobh asked about development of a pl~n which woule lead 'to full consolidation of the threllil: depa.rtments with ever. greater savings possibili'Cies. He thought Palo Alto would be better oft looking at the more global approach in the early stages because. a. future partial step could be found inefficient if the qlobal approach were adopted later. Chief Wall said it was not a concern~ In the meetings ~ith other fire chiefs, city managers~ and labor representatives, the approach had been d.iscussed.. If early in the process the officials determined the best recommendation was full consolidation, then the recommendation would be returned to the Finance committee. Chairperson McCown asked where the break-off stage~ ~ere. Chief Wall said the issue had been discussed at the l~st meeting. All parties realized a commitment of staff time vas r~quired and costly. The ~ost efficient method meant meeting a couple of times a ponth to 'Wor)c: on the details. ThE!. point of grea't.er investment cf dolla.r& would .be onCe the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) ilas dra.wn up. At that point, the JPA would be: re.turned to the Finance Co .. itt.. for approval. Beyond the point of the JPA, the acquisition of property would be the second ju1t',p-off point. council Ke&:ber cobb queried a provision to consider after the stations had been built if the performance of one of the part~ers wa5 not up to Palo Alto's standards. Chief Wall said n~nperformance ~ould be an ele~ent included in the a9re~ent which ~ould be a condition of termina~ion. Council Me~r Kniss asked about other departments incorporating the consolidation i&5ue. Chief Wall askeQ if she meant consolidation in general or specifically. council Member Kniss ~aid putting three or four cities together. Chief Wall said it was not uncommon. The closest exa~ple was in 1976 when Palo Alto consolidated ~ith Stanford. Another example was the San Carlos lind Belmont consolic1ation for a fire authority. Contra costa County ha~ been consolidating districts for the past 15 years in an effort to maintain service and lower costs. One element of the preliminary work would include discussions with the cities who had incorporate.d. to determine hoW' the program ...... as working. 12/10/91 nt!: 5 o Council Member Kniss said ether examples to discover "--.,. the City CQuld benefit from examining proclems ~hich could arise. Richard Rosenbaum, 717 Garland Drivel as\(eo ho ..... the plan could save money for the three cities. Palo Alto would save money because it would need nine fewer firefighters I but he asked hol6.-much Mountain view and Los Altos would save. Chief ~al1 said the same savings opportunity ..... as avail~ble for the other cities. Mountain View and Palo Alto both had fire stations near the Mountain View/Palo Alto border which would be combined; each city would save half its operations cost. Mr. Rosenbaum askad if Mountain View would reduce its personnel~ Chief Wall said Mountain View could either relocate or reduce per~onn~l, but he did not know the plans~ Mr. Rosenbaum as;ked what Mountain Vie,..'s incetltive .... as. Chi;ef Wall said Mountain VieW' r.eeded another tire station, y,'hich the consolidation -would help ease. It would allow a shift of ~r&onn.l to accommOdate the need. In the hills, there 'Was a si9ftiticant area of Los Altos which was contiguous with Palo Alto which needed a tire station and better service.. For Los ~.ltos it vas & _ore economical way to add a station to an area which needed service. If Palo Alto did not consolidate and Los Altos alected to add a station, it would cost the full amount. President of the Fire Fighters Union Tony spilateri said the fi~e unions had met to discuss full consolidation, and the consensus of the Onion was it .. as the way to go. Consolidation would increase service efficiency and reduce duplication througho~t the cities. The Union was interested in s<llpporting the Palo AltO/Mountain View/Los Altos Hills consolidation as the first step to~~rd the bigger picture.. He spoke on behalf of other unions which were involved to confirm their support of the current study as ~e~l as full consolidation in other areas including paramedics~ hazardous materials, etc., to increase the ~evels of service. Lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, requested the Hanover Station remain a full fire station rather than an additional station in the foothills area near residential buildings. She thought Palo Alto was d~in9 more than its share in building two stations in the City .. She aske~ for more data regarding how Mountain View would benefit and for the regional scheme .. A fire station near one's home was a neqative factor because of the noise level and lowered quality of life. She asked the Finance committee to carefully consider the study. John Mock l 2823 Alma Stre~tJ was familiar with the Arastradero Road property and thouqht it was very danqerous~ especially at the "Big Send" wbich~ although it was the fastest route, could be very d&ngerou5 to bicyclists as well as automobiles. He encouraged environmental studies prior to any decision or construction of a station.. He ~ntiQned an area wh.ich was. superior to the 12/10/91 FIN: 6 --~--.--. • .. ' /' ---'--~------ o Arastradero location which already had a fire station planned for it. The study indicate~ five years before any tiscal benefit to t~e City at a time w~en the eCQnomy was worse than it ~culd be in five years. He suggested removing paramedic services from the General.FUnd account and putting the services into an assessment· district and closing the lower Ar8stradero Road station inste~d and putting the new station at Puris;sima Road. It 'Was offensive to offer the land for a station after the Town of Los Altos Hills permitted the construction of an egregiously bad deve.lopment on Arastradero Road which contradicted the comprehensive plan objectives for the aJ'ea and defied the os zoning requiremer:ts.. He urged the rejection of a station in or !"lear the Arastradero Preserve. council Member Xniss sugg~sted the recommendation pe split into two parts. The first part would be based on yearly cost savings of over $600,000 per year beginning in 1999-2000, that the Fin~nc~ Committee recomm-end to the City Council that it direct staff to develop a multi-jurisdictional Fire St:'1tion Consolidation Plan 'With the officials of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. The second part 'Would be th~ Consolidation Plan be based on the concept outlined in Alternative Numper 4, as amended. of the Palo Alto Fir~ Department Fire St~tien Location Study which the Committee would discuss. Chairperson McCown asked if she sugqpsted a change in the second sentence. Council Member Kniss said yes~ She had difficulty recommending a plan which placed a potential site on the Arastra site as listed under -Discussion-(page 2, CMR:533:91). She would not ~ant to recoJllJlend that location to Council. Council Member Cobb asked if there were alternatives which created few-er areas where the response times were r.ot up to appropriate standards. Chief Wall said there might b~ an alternative~ He was willing to look for other sites with Los Altos Hills to find an appropriate alternative~ If the Finance Committee's d.esire was to give a specific direction not to consider the 77 acres but rather to find another site, staff ~ould do that. Chairperson McCown asked if council Member Kniss 'Wanted direction to be qiven not even to consider the Arastradero property or have it remain one of the options~ Council Member Kniss said unless there was semething so c~mpellin9 about the Arastradero property and there was no other alternative, she preferred it not be an option. She preferred the direction Would be to eliminate it as a possibility. MOTIOS: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by McCown, that the Finance committee recommend that the city council direct staff to develop a multi-jurisdictional Fire Station Consolidation Plan 'With the officialS of Mountain View. Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills 12/10/91 FIN: 7 ~ I 'j ] -' . '/ o based on yearly cost savings of over $600,000 per year beginning in 1999-2000. This Consolidation Plan would be b4sed on the concept outlined in Alternative Number 4, as amended, of the Palo Alto Fire Department Fire Station Location Study. council 'Member Cobb suggested 'Wording in the !!lotion that the committee would prefer not having the station at the Arastradero location ..... ith the instruction to staff to look at other ways to accomplish the same objective rather than locating in the 77 ac~es. Chairperson McCown said specifically the CottJ'llittee lJr'ould direct staff to pursue alternatives other than the 77 acres because of concern about 'its desirability. Council Member Kniss 'Was 'Willing to support the study but was uncomfortable with the. location. She did not wa:1t the message about the Arastradero location diluted in the future. Chairperson McCown suggested adding a further recommendation to staff to pursu~ other alternative foothill sites as opposed to the ArastraQ~ro site with ~he goal of finding a better and preferred alternative to the Arastradero site. Council Member Kniss clarified the language as ftfurther direct.n AKENDVDrl': Chairperson McCown moved t seconded by Kniss, to further direct staff to pursue othar alternative sites in the foothills as Qpposed to the Arastradero site. ~ AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE 'l"'RE AMENDHEN'l' IN 'I'BE :MAIN XOTJ:OJI' • Chairperson McCown did not see the plan as a response to near-term .financial pressures of the City. She saw it as e long-term sensible strategy for the City which l',ad been in the laIorks for some. time prior to the current budget cycle. The city should retain exit places if the study demonstrated the City coule not achieve the desired goals. A sharp eye should be kept on the City's investment in time and whether the long-term significant savings continued to exist. It 'Was not an absolute given that the course of action would produce the desired results~ Council Member Cobb supported Chairperson McCown's comments. He was glad to see the Union laIas supportive of the issues and 'hoped it would continue to be an active part of the process. He hoped the global issues would be revle~ed early in the process so no false moves would occur. He cautioned, given the area of location consideration, that homes which vere fire-sensitive, such as the Eichler homes, ~ere not placed in lower response time areas. Council Member Kniss did not wish to dilute the effectiveness of the study. She hoped there would be opportunity for the public to comment about locations, both too near or too far alalay from their residencB.s. ItOTIOR PAS liED 4 -0 • 12/10/91 FIN: 8 · ~ Chairperson McCown asked when the item would go b~fore council. Ms. Harrison replied January 21, 1992.