Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears design and financing plan for new Fire Station 82; estimated $9.2M construction cost
Summary
City staff presented the completed design for Fire Station 82 at Homestead Phase 1 Park, estimated construction at $9.2 million plus roughly $600,000 for procurement and construction management; staff said about $3.3 million in impact fees are available and the city would likely need to bond roughly $7 million, producing $500–$600k/year in debt service.
City engineering and fire‑department staff on Jan. 21 presented the final design and preliminary financing plan for Fire Station 82, a roughly 8,000‑square‑foot, five‑bay facility planned on a 0.75‑acre corner of the Homestead Phase 1 Park site.
The presentation said the construction cost estimate is $9.2 million, and staff added an estimated $600,000 for procurement, construction management and city‑purchased items such as furniture and appliances. "We finished the design. The design is complete," the presenter said, describing a pull‑through layout that accommodates four pieces of equipment, dorms, a fitness room, two patios and an on‑site 500‑gallon fuel tank.
Staff said the city has collected approximately $3.3 million in fire impact fees that could be applied, and that the unfunded portion would likely require issuing about $7 million in municipal bonds. Finance staff estimated that would equate to roughly $500–$600,000 per year in debt service that the general fund would need to cover, unless development fees from future years were available to re‑program toward payments. "We would be looking at 500 to $600,000 a year in debt service payments," a finance official told the council.
Council members and members of the public pressed staff for additional financial detail. One council member asked whether the city could use the new building itself as collateral; staff said buildings used as collateral must be habitable at issuance and therefore the city would need to use existing facilities. Staff also said the city would prefer a wide bidder pool — drawing firms from Sacramento, Chico and Stockton — and estimated about four months to run a bid process and about 18 months for construction after award.
Public commenters raised questions about who would ultimately pay the debt service and whether the city was relying too heavily on developer fees. A resident asked why the council would seek bonds rather than let existing development‑fee mechanisms pay for construction; staff replied that current fee collections in the project area do not cover the full cost. The presentation concluded as an informational item; staff said the next formal steps would be a budget request to authorize bidding and then a future return to council for award decisions.
