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:

Comments are closed.