Committee Minutes
SERVICE/SAFETY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
City Hall, Rom A101
Present:
Kreun, Brooks, Kerian, Gershman.
Absent:
None.
Kreun called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.
1. Fire, Police, and Mosquito Training Facility.
Kreun stated that this item is on the agenda to give staff an opportunity to update the committee on the status of this project which is included in the current year’s CIP and to get feedback from the committee on how to proceed.
Chief O’Neill stated that they have done some preliminary work with Lonnie Laffen, JLG Architects, on this project and have a tentative site design and that Laffen is here to review that design with the committee. He continued that he is also looking for direction and authorization from the committee to continue to work on this facility.
O’Neill proceeded with a basic description of the existing training site on Mill Road and some of the challenges that they have with continued use of that site and gave a historical review of how the site in the industrial park was acquired for use as a potential new training site. He commented that the 27 acre industrial park site is currently leased from the JDA for $1. O’Neill explained that the preliminary design includes training and storage for both the Police and Fire Departments, Storage and Office Space for the Mosquito Control Program, a core building which can also be used as a storm emergency shelter for nearby residents and could be used as an emergency location for the EOC, as well as being able to accommodate a future fourth fire station on site.
O’Neill gave a brief overview of the storage needs that the departments have that would be met by construction of this facility and included a budgetary breakout of where the money to fund this project is in the budget. Schmisek added that there is $1.8 million in the CIP that would be bonded for if this project construction goes ahead as planned. O’Neill stated that there are also some grant opportunities that could provide funding for some of the bricks and mortar for this project due to its potential use as a storm shelter for area residents and that Jim Campbell of the Emergency Operations Center, has access to a grant that could provide all the electronic and audio/visual for the core building due to its being his backup work site. O’Neill continued that he would like to have authorization to proceed with Laffen on continuing to fine tune the project plans, but would like to have input from the committee to make sure that he is on a path that they can support.
Laffen distributed information to the committee showing overall site layout as well as interior building plans. He stated that one benefit of the plan is that the entire site would be surrounded by a secured fence, unlike the current site which is fully unsecured and has seen some problems with trespassing and vandalism due to lack of a way to keep unauthorized people out of the site. Laffen continued that the core shared building is shown in lavender and would provide space to be utilized by all departments for classroom training, restrooms, office space, and break rooms. He pointed out that the dark pink at the top of the drawing is the area designated as storage bays for the fire department and the light pink would be for future expansion of the facility to also serve as a west end fire station. O’Neill commented that if the committee decides to go ahead and add this now, he could staff and equip it by moving one crew from the central headquarters to this location and would not require any additional expenditure for either equipment or additional staff. Laffen explained that the area to the west in blue is the designated police department storage, with the lighter blue area being available for future expansion of the storage area. Laffen pointed out that the southern portion of the building would be for use of Mosquito Control and was located this way to allow their personnel to function independent of the rest of the site. He added that the next page details the storage availability on the second story of the core building, where each department would have some additional equipment storage available. In regards to the outside look of the building, the structure would have an industrial look and most likely either be metal or cast concrete, but that no definite decisions on construction have been looked at to date.
Gershman inquired whether this is our least desirable remaining lot in the industrial park. Hoover responded that it is probably the second least desirable, but seemed the best fit for this location. He added that as they visit with potential industry about developing in the industrial park there is an increasing desire for a fast fire response to those businesses due to the nature of their operations and the decision to proceed with locating a fire station here would help to alleviate those concerns. Gershman asked how the inclusion of the station would affect insurance rates. O’Neill stated that if we can get our ISO rating to a 2, there would be no effect on residential rates, but that it will decrease business insurance rates and that we are extremely close to that and adding this station would bring us closer to getting the improved rating. Kerian inquired what other steps would be needed to ensure the rating change. O’Neill stated that there might need to be an increase in staffing. Kreun commented that we may need to look at the cost of making changes to get the ISO 2 rating versus the benefit received in the community to see if it is something that we want to pursue. O’Neill responded that our community has grown beyond what three stations can cover and we should have taken steps to expand the department in the past, but we have made the decision to hold off. He continued that the savings to businesses versus any cost increase they would bear would probably be a breakeven, however, they would also get the benefit of living in a safer community. He stated that overall the training center is not viewed as being a money maker for the community, but rather should be able to break even by bringing in schools and other communities for training here. He commented that the biggest effect of adding the facility is the training capability and effect it has on performance level of our people. Gershman inquired whether there were no additional costs anticipated beyond the cost of the building should a decision be made to go ahead with the fire station addition. O’Neill commented that he could open the station with just a transfer or personnel and equipment so cost would be for the building. Schmisek added that on an ongoing basis there would also be additional utility costs as well for the new facility. O’Neill added that if the committee wants to address adding coverage of the southeast end of the City and/or coverage of East Grand Forks, that then there would need to be talking about definite additions of personnel.
Schmisek commented that the immediate need to keep in mind right now is for storage, since right now much of the equipment for these departments is being stored at the Civic Auditorium and talks are proceeding on selling that building and then will need to have a new storage site for that equipment. O’Neill added that there is a cost to taxpayers in the City for adding this facility, but that what they gain is a state of the art facility that will be here for the long-term and also an increased safety factor due to the increased training opportunities for personnel.
Brooks commented that we are not looking to add this to make money like we would in an enterprise fund and that rather, this facility can also benefit the community by increasing the fire protection capabilities in Ward 1, making our personnel better trained, and also being a regional rapport builder by providing training opportunities for other smaller communities in the region. He cited several instances where already others are seeking us out for education in the mosquito control area as we have come to be known for our successful program and that by adding this facility we should be able to market our abilities even more to these communities and increase the education that we can provide to them. O’Neill commented that he has already been approached by the Manvel Fire Chief for training that will be done this year with their department and that annually they work with the Thompson firefighters for training as well. He added that we do need to show that we are the leaders in the region for these types of training opportunities and that Capt. Kirby of the Police Department also has classes that they will be holding for others that could be expanded should we add this facility to our community.
Kerian inquired whether this facility was overdesigned at all or if it was built to house just what we presently need. O’Neill stated that it would meet our current needs, but would have some excess left for future needs, beyond adding any of the future expansion areas. Laffen pointed out the areas labeled for future addition on an as needed basis on the drawings. Kerian asked how this compares with the Mosquito Control building that they had talked about building a couple of years ago. Todd Hanson, Mosquito Control Director, commented that this layout is larger than what was discussed a couple of years ago and that the previous plan had been for a 7,000 square foot building, and this one is 13,000 square foot and that they need to make sure that they can house at least the 14 pickups, 4 atvs, chemicals, and other miscellaneous equipment that they presently use in the program, but that there may be some areas for decreasing the size of the mosquito control area. He added that the building they had been planning for before they hoped to get for $350,000, but their informal estimates came in ranging from $445,000-$600,000.
Kerian stated that she recalls some of the grants that we got to purchase equipment had a component desiring that this equipment be used to provide regional support and she sees the use of the facility both for storage of that equipment and for regional training classes as being a good fit to satisfy those grant requirements.
The committee inquired as to the overall cost of the facility. Laffen stated that they have not really looked at a cost yet in detail, as many of the factors such as structure type have not been determined yet, but that a rough cost he would see of being $3.5 - $4 million, which would include all parking, paving, landscaping and prop development. O’Neill cautioned the committee that this is not a final design, just very preliminary and depending on the final decisions with design that price may change and also that all may not be developed at once, but added over time. Schmisek commented that he is not overly worried with the estimate being over the originally planned for $1.8 million, as if the project is scaled over time to a final completion in 2008 or 2009 then we should not have a problem handling that with current mill rate, even based on his planning of a 4.4% mill rate growth each year. He added that this would not address operational costs, however.
Capt. Michael Kirby, Police Department, commented that the joint training opportunities that the facility would provide would be very useful to them. He added that currently they do not have a range that is secure for them to practice with long-range firearms training, as their range in the police building only allows for handguns and stationary training, whereas the range at this sight would provide long range, as well as moving firearms training opportunities. He continued that the facility will also provide much needed permanent storage for much of the grant funded equipment that they have acquired. He added that the current training tower also does not meet most of the needs for training for situations that the police department needs, such as doors for forced entry and SWAT practice. He continued that the opportunities that the site would also possess for ATV, snowmobile, and canine training would also fill needs that are currently not being met. Kirby commented that they have for several years been trying to attract training schools to Grand Forks, but the lack of facilities has been a main reason that we don’t get them and that we were extremely lucky to be able to get the DEA Narcotic Investigation school here this year and that having any of these here is an extreme benefit to the region as well as the city.
Kreun inquired whether there would be any opportunities to include permanent homes for other agencies on this site. O’Neill stated that the facility could be used by numerous agencies, he has some reservations about agencies making a permanent home there as he does not want to lose the identity of the facility, but that if the agency would fit with the facility could be looked at. Kreun responded that he was thinking of the highway patrol. Kirby commented that if there seemed to be an appropriate fit for another agency to join in the facility that should not pose a problem, and another one to think of is the border patrol that is currently researching construction of a training facility. Kreun added that he spoke briefly with the Highway Patrol leaders when in Bismarck last week and they talked about their plans to construct a new training facility and that he didn’t know whether we could draw them away from Bismarck, but that we should at least make contact and that it may be a fit for our facility. Kirby commented that they have pursued several schools and partnerships over the last couple of years, in particular with Lake Region summer school and lost out to Fargo due to our lack of facility, but may be able to revisit some of those once we have a facility here. Laffen commented that they have worked with the Border Patrol in the past on some projects and they typically do not like to collaborate with others as they like to have total control of their facilities.
Helland stated that they are excited about the prospects for having a permanent home as over the last couple of years they have bounced around a lot and the addition of a training space will really benefit their department and enhance the experience for other communities that come here for training.
Kreun stated that these three departments that have joined together in this facility are all ones that will not go away and it behooves us to proceed with planning and keep in mind the future as we look at this facility. He added that perhaps we could also explore any training opportunities that may be available with the EGF Tech students in fire school. O’Neill responded that he does not see being able to replace trained personnel with students, but there may be some opportunities for ride-alongs or support positions that they could fill to assist the career personnel and that would be something to include in discussions as the facility development continues. O’Neill continued that the main reason for the update today was to make sure that this is something that the committee and council want to continue with and that it seems that is the consensus and they will stay within the authorized department head spending limits as they proceed. Kreun requested that staff continue to provide updates and cost information with development options for comparison and discussion. He also asked that any supporting information for the project be provided to the committee so that they are fully informed to address questions and concerns that may come to them from the public.
Kreun continued that he also wanted to express to the Fire Department praises that he heard from some recently regarding their participation in the collapse in East Grand Forks last fall. He continued that they attribute the good outcome of that situation to the equipment and knowledge in operating that equipment that our personnel had and wanted to again commend the department for their efforts.
Duquette commented that on behalf of the Mayor he wanted to express that the Mayor is very much behind this project and that administratively this project has support and feels it will be beneficial to the City to continue development on this project.
Motion by Kerian, second by Brooks to support further development of the joint Fire, Police and Mosquito Control training and storage facility. Aye: All. Nay: None. Motion Carried.
(Brooks departed the meeting.)
2. Interim Solid Waste Disposal Plan.
Feland stated that he wanted to update the committee on the interim solid waste disposal plan and get feedback on proceeding with this matter. He continued that the first piece of information he can provide is that there will be a jurisdictional hearing in July to determine if district court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The next court date will be in December for a hearing to determine the merits of the case and that there will likely not be any decision on the matter this year. Feland explained that we have committed to having our landfill closed prior to October 2008, which is the time at which the new east-west runway at the airport will open and also should coincide with about the time we actually reach capacity based on our current rate of disposal. He reviewed a map of the landfill with the committee and pointed out that the 100 acres that are still open and useable and that we have planned to close about another 25 acres in 2006.
Feland stated that we are currently working with CPS, Ltd regarding the final closure plan and ways to maximize our remaining capacity so that we can stay open until as close as possible to October 2008. Kerian inquired whether this includes continuing to receive garbage from other communities as we do now, as we would like to maintain our current revenue stream as long as possible. Feland responded that they are including that, as when the revenue stops, we will also be at a point where we will begin to incur outside costs for handling our own garbage. He continued that they did attend and agree to join a regionalization group and provided a copy of the minutes from that meeting to the committee for their later review. He continued that this deals with reviewing the overall solid waste disposal in our larger region and that many of the existing landfills in this area now have only 10-15 years of capacity left. Gershman asked if this will help us address how to proceed should we lose the Turtle River Township site. Feland responded that we do need to start looking at a cost benefit approach to having our own landfill versus sending our solid waste somewhere else. Gershman commented that a caller on the radio had suggested that we should look into the empty coal trains that head west and see if there was any ability to use those cars to haul our waste to Gwinner. Feland stated that both Gwinner and Sawyer landfills are owned by Waste Management, which has expressed interest in contracting with us to take our solid waster. He referred to a comparative fee schedule on the last page of the handout that he had provided and stated that our final contract rates might be less than this as this is their published rates. He stated that in regards to Fosston, besides their published rates, users last year also had to provide a subsidy of about $2 million for the facility and that they have stated they would probably not be able to handle our tonnage in the summer months. He explained that we would collect, bail and load onto the trucks of the facility that we contract with and our costs would start from there, with an exception being Mar-Kit which would do the bailing. He stated that we will need also evaluate the cost benefit for whether we should be bailing it ourselves or letting the receiving destination do that and that some want it to come in already bailed because it allows them to load more into their trucks.
Feland continued that Fargo would currently not be able to handle our waste, as their ordinance specifies that no more than 30% of their landfill intake can be from outside sources and they are already at about 24%. In addition, he continued that Fargo is already addressing some capacity issues with their current load.
In regards to costs, Feland pointed out that the fees for contracting would range from $52.00/ton to $65.50/ton, which is almost double our current cost for operations. He restated that these costs may decrease slightly if we are able to negotiate a rate with a handler, but will still be substantially more than our current rate.
Feland stated that he would like the committee’s approval to move ahead on a couple of issues. First, he would like to send out an RFP for interim disposal service. He stated that regardless of the outcome of the court case, there will be a time where we will be without our own landfill and we will need to know what our costs during that time will be. In addition, he would like to review the existing services and fees. His first proposal would be to eliminate the “junk” collection dumpsters at the public works facility. He explained that presently anyone can bring items and place them in the rolloff containers with no charge and that they dump these several times throughout the week as they are overflowing, which is a cost to the city, and that this benefit is intended to be for our citizens, but knows that there are many from outside communities that also dump here rather than pay the fee at the landfill. Gershman inquired whether if we stop this people will just dump anywhere. Feland continued that we could rather offer one free pickup per customer per year of these goods. He added that this would keep the service free one time a year in addition to cleanup week for our citizens. This would be a change from current policy, as we now charge $10 each time we make a special pickup. He stated that besides this change he will be looking at staffing levels, knowing that we may not need all the personnel that we currently have if we no longer run our own landfill. Feland stated that he would also like to start advertising the changes in policy and potential future fee change as soon as possible so that the public will know and can also be informed and planning for the changes. Gershman commented that this should move to the full Council soon if we are looking at changes as soon as this summer. Kreun stated that perhaps we should have one more update at the committee level to work out some of the recommendations and then move to COW.
Feland stated that the RFP he would be looking at doing would be for a 3-5 year contract and would like to have this out by the end of the year so that if we should need to we could begin using it in 2007. He continued that we currently have $1.4 to $1.5 million of outside revenue that is generated in the Sanitation Fund each year and we need to also look at how we will be adapting to the loss of this revenue in the future and how we will then handle our debt service. He added that he is hoping to make this as smooth and efficient a process as possible for our current customers and that he also wants to make the committee aware that we may lose some of those customers and if that happens the rates will need to be adjusted to compensate for the other lost revenue.
Kerian inquired why baling is referred to in a couple of places in the handouts. Feland explained that we started baling as a way to save space in our existing landfill and to be good neighbors by cutting down on the amount of loose debris that comes out of the landfill. He stated that now we will need to look at the cost benefit to continue to bail our own or just shipping it out from a transfer station. Kreun added that at the time baling was the best option for us to conserve space, but is we have to look at hauling it we may need to evaluate whether it is still cost effective to continue, since as we lose our revenue stream that covers part of the costs, the costs will stay the same and we may need to look at cutting them.
Feland responded that he also feels the hauling costs that he has in the handout may be low compared to what we will actually get, due to the increased cost of fuel. He commented that the key to whichever decision we make would be for us to make a good job of educating our customers, both within and outside of the community. He informed the committee that he has begun visiting some meetings in the communities that are our customers, but there are still many that he has not visited and he will continue with those efforts, and in addition, the Department of Health is looking at wanting an updated briefing from us this spring.
Kreun pointed out that all of our options for hauling are in a position with being 10-15 years from capacity, so really are short-term options, versus if we are successful in siting our new landfill we will be looking at 40-60 years to capacity. Feland commented that if we look to siting at an alternative location, he would recommend that we select a site within our jurisdiction, as this eliminates the zoning problems that we are faced with now.
Feland proposed that he would like to come back to this committee in April with another update, then proceed to COW in May, and be ready to send out the RFP in September. Kreun stated that at the April meeting we should also be looking at making recommendations on any short-term changes, such as elimination of the “junk” collection boxes.
Kerian inquired whether agreements we have with other communities for solid waste run on the calendar year or if they are staggered. Feland stated that their rates all change at the same time as ours, and that most of them are set to run through 2008, but that any could get out of the contract with a 30-day notice. He added that he has a goal of trying to maintain at least one more full year of revenue, but that he wants the committee to be aware that we will also probably need to look at fee increases beyond those already planned for in 2007 to start building to cover our costs in 2008 and 2009. Kreun stated that he would also like to see information when this comes back as to how we plan to go about educating the public without causing a panic over potential rates.
Feland stated that he wants to make sure that in particular he gets the message out to all of our current outside customers that we do want their solid waste and that even in the event that we no longer have our own landfill, it may benefit them to continue to haul to us, since many of them will not have the volume needed to negotiate a preferential rate to haul themselves.
Richard Newman, Sanitation Supervisor, added that by going through the siting process that we did, regardless of the outcome, has still gotten us 2 to 3 years more use out of our existing landfill, as if we had not been pursuing other options, we would not have been able to continue to use the existing landfill for this long.
Feland stated that we do need to make sure that we get the word out that through all the steps we have taken we have actually extended the life of our landfill by at least ten years, as without the baling and siting efforts, we could have been forced to close our landfill back in 1998.
3. Adjourn.
Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sherie Lundmark
Admin. Spec. Sr.