Forget About Cherries, Lets Talk Apples…

Books and apple

There has been a great deal said about costs and affordability at each step in the fire hall replacement process. Each time taxpayers were told that the proposal was the ‘bare bones’ and could not be any cheaper, as well the statement was always made that costs were going up and we need to build now before it gets more expensive. Those who have tracked this issue will recall the first proposal was $6.3 million, the first referendum was for $4.2 million, the second referendum was for $3.4 million, and the most recent is for $2.4 million.

We question whether the numbers would not be lower if the existing proposal was not to build on the footprint of the current building. The 2011 consultants report clearly identified that saving the existing assets alone would result in significant savings, not having to rent temporary structures to house the fire department also would result in substantial savings. The consultants recommendations are covered in the ‘Cherry Picking’ article on the MIRRA website.

The owners of the adjoining property have repeatedly expressed an interest in selling property to the Improvement District. The Islands Trust executive have already waived all fees associated with the subdivision and rezoning of the property and would do so in an expedited manner.

In our research we have yet to find an example locally where an existing fire hall has been demolished to make way for a new hall. Almost every community repurposes the old building after the new hall is built. Once the large vehicle openings are removed, upgrading an old hall to a suitable safe standard is not complex and the community’s asset lives on in a new role. We suggest that we follow the model of North Saanich and repurpose the vehicle bays for offices and meeting space for the Improvement District, resulting in an overall reduction of size in the new building and the resulting savings.

In an effort to give an ‘apples to apples’ comparision, here are some local examples of what other communities have done recently:

East Sooke

6 Bays

Repurposed hall

Many extra hall amenities

$2.12 Million

 

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/bidding-opens-for-east-sooke-fire-hall-building-1.919084

 

https://www.crd.bc.ca/plan/current-projects/buildings/proposed-east-sooke-fire-hall

 

North Galiano Island

2 Bays

Repurposed hall

$670,000.00

 

https://www.crd.bc.ca/plan/current-projects/buildings/north-galiano-fire-hall

 

Saturna Island

7 bays (Two buildings on separate sites)

Old hall sold to private interests

Included land acquisition and many extras

$1.2 Million

 

http://www.sifps.ca/open_house/2011_photos.html

 

 

North Saanich

6 bays

Repurposed hall

Many extra amenities including training tower

$1.6 Million

 

http://www.northsaanich.ca/Municipal_Hall/Departments/Emergency_and_Fire_Services/Fire_Department/Wain_Road_Fire_Hall_Expansion.htm

 

While each community has individual needs and construction costs vary depending on amenities and facility requirements, we feel confident that a better, more economical proposal can be put forward using the adjacent property that has been offered to the community by the owners. One substantial ancillary benefit would be the overall savings in the rehabilitation of the old schoolhouse by the firefighters association using donated funds. Being able to retain it on its existing site will save many dollars and volunteer hours. We also would save the existing in ground and elevated water tanks, which are valuable community assets.

These are just a few examples which show clearly that retaining the old building and acquiring new property where available are cost saving measures utilized by districts everywhere to reduce costs and additionally gaining the best benefit for taxpayers by preserving and re-purposing where possible their old community assets. MIRRA is not supporting ideas and suggestions that are nebulous wishful thinking. These are real life, cost saving, frugal easily implemented solutions which are widely implemented and which need not necessarily delay the construction program.

These are all issues which the public asked the MIID Trustees to pursue after the last failed referendum. It seems from the responses we have received, that their efforts on these have been lacking.

We appreciate that the Improvement District has looked at and rejected building on another site, but we believe they did this with haste – not taking into account the overall economic benefits and without thorough consultation of construction or engineering professionals who perhaps would have guided them in another direction. As proposed the fire hall is being developed site wise in the most expensive method possible. There are alternatives, the community has voiced its support for those alternatives for many years now, yet the Trustees seem to offer absolutely no flexibility and consistently put forward the most expensive proposals.

If you took the existing proposed building and purchased new land anywhere on the island hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved, in addition hundreds of thousands of dollars of community assets would be saved – why is it we are being told the only suitable location for a fire hall on our island is the exact footprint of the existing building?

We suggest it’s time to think outside of the box.

Cherry Picking : Fire Hall Referendum Facts

 

cherry

 

At the March 15, 2014 public meeting, in response to MIRRA questioning the need for a six bay fire hall, the statement was made that a six bay fire hall was being proposed specifically as it was the primary recommendation of the consultant that was hired on 2011 to review the fire department and its operations.

What was not stated was the consultant at that time recommended MIID have six pieces of apparatus (Vehicles) for operations. In July 2013, the Fire Chief stated that an operational review determined only four pieces of apparatus were required for operations.

There was also indifference to MIIRA’s position that the existing fire hall not be demolished and the new hall should be built on adjacent lands.

In commenting on the previous (2011) proposed hall (referred to as the ‘class B plan’), the consultant had the following to say:

“The Class B plan did have a satisfactory site plan but it also added considerably to the overall project cost. There is a lot of infrastructure on the present site that must be taken into consideration when planning for a new fire hall. Considerable money has been spent on an emergency standby generator, owned and operated by the MIID that is located to the North of the existing fire hall toward the ambulance station. There is also an underground water tank directly in front of the fire hall located under the concrete apron. To the rear of the fire hall there is an old wood structure that was built as a hose drying and training tower. To the West of that is a concrete bulkhead that supports an elevated water tank. There is also an above ground water tank directly behind the fire hall rear stairs that catches rain water and an above ground water tank farm located behind the old hose tower structure. With the exception of the large concrete bulkhead which would take some money and effort to relocate, these tanks could be relocated to another location on the site as required.”

 “A complicating factor is also the old schoolhouse building that is situated approximately 20 feet to the southeast corner of the existing fire hall. It will have to be moved regardless of what type of fire hall is built over the existing fire hall footprint.”

 “The site plan in the Class B design made good use of the site but it would necessitate the relocation of the old schoolhouse building and other infrastructure, which would have added significantly to the overall project cost.”

“MIID should consider acquiring 1 acre of land to the west of the property they currently own. Buying more land for a new fire hall may require re-zoning which could delay the construction of a new fire hall. If it is not possible to acquire land adjacent to the west, another fire hall location could be considered. They should also consider building a new 6 bay drive through fire hall on the newly acquired land. This would allow the existing building to be used until a new building is built and ready to occupy. This would save the district money because all of the existing infrastructure could remain as is. The old school house could remain in its current position as could the tank farm, the elevated tank and hose tower.”

His actual recommendations were:

6.1.1 Recommendation

MIID should consider purchasing 1 acre of land adjacent to their property to construct a new 6 bay fire hall or another suitable site for a new fire hall.

 6.1.2 Recommendation

Since a new fire hall is a priority and since cost is a factor, a new fire hall should be separated from as much of the site re-development as possible.

Now that was not exactly what was said at the meeting, was it…..

The full consultants report can be viewed here:

http://miidonline.com/reports/MIID-MIFR%20Report%202011-08.pdf

Specifically pages 20 and 29 are quoted.

The consultant’s recommendations are on page 30.

The online report on having four active pieces of apparatus is here:

http://miidonline.com/reports/Pilot%20Project.pdf

The Mayneliner article on this topic of four vehicles:

Fire Hall Referendum Concerns

 

March 19, 2014

Mayne Island Residents and Ratepayers Association

 On March 15, 2014 Mayne Island Improvement District Trustees held a public meeting to discuss the new fire hall plans. Several issues came up, the most concerning of which is the Trustees’ decision to not allow a mail in ballot in this referendum. Contrary to our understanding from the meeting, research of ministry information has shown the decision to not do a mail-out is the Trustee’s. The majority of votes cast at the last referendum were mailed in. People away on holidays, Island residents who do not live here full time or have property as investments, make up the majority of taxpayers on Mayne  Island. They are not receiving a mail-out information circular or a mail-in ballot (as in the two past referendums) but will have to find an ad in a major newspaper. For less than it costs to publish ads, a direct mail campaign wouldensure all voters have a fair opportunity to be informed of this taxation issue.

Please see this link for clarification as the the Ministry’s point of view on the decision making process:

http://www.soundernews.com/news/ministry-says-fire-board-holds-referendum-responsibilities.html

The second major issue is the acquisition of more land for the firehall site. It would seem a wiser expenditure of tax dollars, considering that for the same or less money, we could build a new firehall on a new piece of property. This creates a less crowded site location, room for future expansion and eliminates significant expense in relocating the fire department during construction. Retaining and upgrading the existing hall for community use also warrants consideration. There are good reasons pro and con, but there is no need to rush to judgement if the new hall is located next door. A conventional fire hall design permits easy access to and from Felix Jack Road in either direction from the westerly property. The Islands Trust has indicated support for a speedy rezoning process as a community amenity and the Trust Executive have waived all fees for such a process should the purchase be from the neighbouring westerly property owners. One of the owners attended the March 15th meeting and expressed their ongoing interest in participating in this proposal.

 Thirdly, taxation fairness was well discussed in the last failed referendum. A parcel tax was widely supported within the community, as opposed to the currently presented assessment tax. As the fire hall is a capital asset owned by the community as a whole, a parcel tax shares the cost evenly across all properties. MIID purchased a $40,000 software program in 2013 for the Health Centre tax, and this new tax would just be an added line item. Why would we not want better use from that $40,000 expenditure?

Billing our own tax would save $8,000 annually in collection fees from the Province.

 It is not unusual for referendums of this type to fail multiple times before the underlying proposals are refined into a form acceptable to the taxpayers. The present (and past) MIID Trustees have laboured long and hard to bring the project to this stage. These island volunteers are understandably anxious to see the fire hall project concluded, but rushing through a very brief information and consultation period is producing a flawed process. For this proposal, total costs including loan interest over 20 years are about $3,400,000, in a time of economic uncertainty and negative effects of threats to our ferry service. Please give this serious consideration when you reach the ballot box.

On behalf of the Board of Directors,

MIRRA

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 Letter from MIRRA Member.

 

To: Tom Moore

 

Returning Officer, Mayne Island Fire Hall Referendum

Dear Mr. Moore,

Our Mayne Island Improvement District executive held its information meeting regarding the Fire Hall Referendum on Saturday, March 15th.

Questions were asked concerning the process for providing notice to off island property owners. We were advised the advertising budget was being spent on the daily print media. There was a proposal from the floor that the budget expenditure would be far more productive in notifying off island taxpayers if it were applied to a mail-out. We were told by the Improvement District executive that this option was outside their control and was dictated by the Ministry.

We moved to Mayne Island three years ago, following construction of our home. We were on Island during the last fire hall referendum. The referendum polarized the island residence, one only had to read the local paper to recognize the division the process created. The previous referendum offered a more inclusive voting process, it allowed off island propery owners to mail in their vote. Of the approximate 1240 votes, 750 were mailed in, 60% of cast votes were mailed.

As a member of the newly proposed fire hall building committee, I have a personal intererest in this project. Regardless I feel in the interest of fairness and our community’s harmony every effort should be made to ensure all taxpayers have an opportunity to participate in this referendum. Beside beinginformed of the referendum, off island property owners require sufficient notice to make travel plans in order to vote. Considering the mailing address of off island property owners is known, why would the randomness of a newspaper ad not be complimented by a mail-out which would target the notice directly to the taxpayer. In the interest of fairness every effort should be made to allow all property owners to participate.

I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

Carl Bunnin

 

 We did receive a negative comment, which we feel should be addressed:

Anonymous Comment: Does MIRRA have anything at all positive to say about the firehall? Can MIRRA present a balanced viewpoint on the issues? Everything I see printed or emailed is negative. This MIRRA full frontal attack and anonymous letter campaign against MIID over the firehall exhibits the absolute worst of negative Conservative or US political campaigns. It has gotten to the point where MIRRA’s voice is being tuned out as coming from crazy embittered people who cannot see anything objectively nor get along with anyone. I thought after the last failed referendum MIRRA was going to participate fully with MIID in the new design – now it looks like y’all just gleefully went into hiding only to pop up again like guerrillas to lob some more rocks and grenades. Name withheld by request. Time: March 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm.

MIRRA RESPONSE

In response to the letter sent by name “withheld” MIRRA has the following comments as this was a direct attack on MIRRA Directors…

To address the accusation of MIRRA taking a “full frontal attack and anonymous letter campaign”, MIRRA has not yet taken a position as an organization and has stated so. The emails and commentaries posted come directly from community members and are posted anonymously to protect people from attacks such as yours. The same response applies to your calling MIRRA Directors “crazy, embittered people”.

Your reference to the last failed referendum is weak at best and shows a lack of knowledge of the facts. You may feel it is allright to spend taxpayers money frivolously and freely and omit critical financial information in public disclosures but MIRRA does not. Because of MIRRA’S and community efforts the new proposal is over $1,000,000 below the price of the last fire hall proposal. As far as MIRRA directors “going into hiding only to pop up again like Guerillas”, nothing could be less accurate. MIRRA organized, with the Conservancy, town hall deer forums and addressed the habitat destruction being heaped on this island by fallow deer populations. Extensive articles appeared in the Mayneliner. This has lead to the creation of the Deer Committee and negotiations with Government to take responsibility and deal with this environmental disaster. MIRRA Directors are directly involved with the SGI Economic Development Commission and the Experience the Gulf Islands Project, bringing the Trans Canada Trails, Eco Tourism and all related infrastructures and economic expansion to the Islands.  MIRRA Directors are directly responsible for the implementation and funding of our bus which has lead to an Islands wide transportation study by the BC Transit Authority who will be offering a subsidized transportation system to all the SGI Islands. MIRRA is now in the process of including improvement in planning and expenditures of our parcel tax funds to utilize part of that for our share of the bus system on Mayne. MIRRA Directors lead the way to creating better maintenance and operations of our docks at Miners and Horton Bays.

On more than one occasion, MIRRA has offered assistance to MIID on the firehall project and such help was politely refused.

MIRRA is listening to the community and is ready now to post a position on the firehall in the Mayneliner. We have listened to our members, the community at large and agree that there are good things which have been accomplished by the MIID Trustees but we also agree with those who have commented that there still needs to be more work to improve the model. This is not just the opinion of lay people “throwing rocks”, a professional consultant hired by MIID expressed the exact concerns with which we agree.

MIRRA Directors understand your emotions on this issue, but this is a democracy and all people have a voice. We agree on one thing, the last failed referendum was an humiliating and embarrassing event for the people of Mayne Island. The personal attacks that were endured by those who dared to speak up was inexcusable. This time we provided an anonymous forum for folks to voice their opinions.

What has been accomplished so far? Savings of well over $1 million dollars of our tax money.

MIRRA does not think that was a waste of time sir or madam.

 

 

 

Fire Hall Referendum Questions

Model view 2014 Mayne Island Fire Hall Proposal

 

MIRRA thanks all of the Trustees and volunteers who contributed much time and effort to the new firehall construction project. It has been a long, arduous and difficult struggle for all involved. As this latest process has been progressing, MIRRA Directors have been approached by members of the public with many questions as to status of developments. This is not a simple process as we tend to build very few fire halls. This is also a difficult task for the public themselves who are facing another cost of living increase.

MIRRA believes this decision is important and costly and that time should not be an issue in getting it right to insure success at referendum. We are also concerned as to the limited opportunities for off island taxpayers to be informed of or participate in the referendum process.

On February 15th 2014, MIID held an open house at which they presented their proposal for the new fire hall.

The following questions have been subsequently raised:

Cost of construction:

The new building is still in the $2.5 million range. The Trustees have done well to reduce the price but what is the breakdown of the costs? In 2011, the Improvement District received an estimate for the cost of upgrading the existing vehicle bays to utilize them as office space by removing the doors and installing seismic interior walls at $100,000.00. We understand the cost of removing the old hall is over $300,000. There is also an added cost to relocate the fire department during construction.

Community debt load:

With our small population, a lot of whom are on fixed incomes, an undertaking of this magnitude is a serious issue which must justify the additional increase in the cost of living that our community must bear. Another major issue is the state of our local economy, housing market declines and population declines.

Building:

Why was a drive through design chosen? As vehicles park 2 deep, almost every call out time the front truck only will leave having to back in returning due to the rear truck remaining in the bay. What is the point of the extra complications and additional costs of land development to accommodate a drive through?

What type of building contract have MIID entered into? Why have they contracted before community consultation?

Was the bid process for the building a design/build tender for a turnkey project with a guaranteed price?

If not- why not? If not, how can we establish an actual cost to go to referendum?

In a July 2013 memo the fire chief stated that we would be a 4 vehicle fire department – why is the proposal for a 6 bay fire hall?

Location of building and adjoining property:

At the last go round of public input on the firehall project there was a strong community will to retain the old building and re-purpose it if possible. The natural option is to acquire a portion of the adjoining westerly property and construct or expand the new building into that location. The cost discussed is $50,000 for a 1/2 acre.

Can we now acquire the property, and doing so, site the new building there and retain the old building? Can this be accomplished more efficiently if we drop the drive through aspect of the proposed new structure?

Removal of old building concerns:

Keeping the old building will provide a community asset as well as an appropriate shelter for the Fire Department staff and trucks during construction in accordance with Fire underwriters dwelling protection grade 3B. If we remove the old building before the new one is completed, we will bear the expense of constructing new office and temporary garage structures for the storage of vehicles. Failure to do so in accordance with regulations, will be a violation of the Fire Underwriters 3B regulation potentially affecting insurance policies on Mayne Island. Have MIID investigated this?

Taxation:

Community members clearly expressed a preference for a parcel tax at the last referendum. There are benefits to both styles of taxation, but affordability to all taxpayers must be a paramount consideration in selecting a taxation model. MIID has chosen to use an assessment based tax as opposed to a parcel tax. The greatest tax burden will be on the higher assessed properties and homes and local businesses.

A parcel tax is different in that everyone pays the same and you can opt to pay it in advance in one time payment. This tax is for a community asset not a service.

What are the comparisons between what it will cost individuals and businesses under both types of taxation?

Taxation method calculations ( for comparisons only these are not precise but are considered representative); comparisons using $35.00 (Trustees estimate) per $100,000 assessed value for residential and for business 2.45 times residential or $85.75 per $100,000 assessed value for businesses @ $650,000 value.

Residential property:

Parcel tax $100.00 (calculated estimate based on $2.4 million loan @5%)

Assessment tax- $227.50

Business property:

Parcel tax- $245

Assessment tax- $557.37

Approximate current (2012 assessment notices) Improvement District taxes using $650,000 assessment:

Residential- $800.00

Business- $1960.00

Impact of new tax proposals on Improvement District taxes using $650,000 assessment:

New Residential- parcel tax- $900

New Residential- assessment tax- $1027.50

New Businesses -parcel tax- $2205.00

New Business -assessment tax- $2517.37

MIID quoted Costs of using Provincial Government to collect an assessment tax-

– $8000.00 per year or 5% of taxes.

Costs of MIID collecting parcel tax- $0.00

  • MIID is already billing each property owner for the Health Centre tax, firehall is just an added item.
  • MIID already has hired staff for administration and a $40,000 tax software program bought in 2013.
  • MIID does not have significant defaults in taxation. Any collection costs can be added to the delinquency.
  • MIID costs of collections including legal, should be added to the bill on the delinquent property.

These are some questions, issues and comparisons that have been requested, brought to and discussed with MIRRA Reps. MIRRA has posted them for your information. Some of the issues may be important to you and some may not.

MIRRA is striving to provide a balanced viewpoint for all to assess based on their individual circumstances. It is important for MIID to now hold an open forum Town Hall meeting where members of the community can direct questions to the Trustees.

Please let us know what you think of the new firehall proposals, suggestions you may have and if you would or would not support the current proposals.

What do you think MIRRA should do at this point, if anything?

On behalf of MIRRA Directors