Category: Fire Hall Construction

Unofficial results

Yes: 396

No: 301

Below are some emails that have been circulating on island, these are the views of individuals and are presented for information:

Dear Mayne Islander:

We face a decision about a new Fire Hall. Permission is being sought to spend $2.4 million to build a much-enlarged facility. Is this the right goal related to firefighting on Mayne Island? Last week, friends of mine received bad news from their insurance company. Their policy for one of their properties rose by about $2,400 a year because they were only “semi-protected” from fire by existing, apparently inadequate, water facilities. Not only that, but the insurance company immediately increased the premiums for their other properties. Their total hit will exceed $5,000 per year!  The immediate cause of this situation was a response of our Fire Chief to an enquiry by their insurance company. That response puts all Mayne Island property owners at risk for significant increases in their insurance premiums. It will soon be common knowledge among insurance companies that Mayne Island properties lack appropriate firefighting capabilities and, consequently, all of our premiums will increase!

There are opportunities to vote on the matter of the Fire Hall on Wednesday April 9, Saturday April 11 and Saturday April 19^th. Please consider this matter and vote

Monument or Solutions?

It’s not unusual for us to address the wrong problems. It’s often easier to do something, anything, rather than to do what’s really needed. We face a decision about a new Fire Hall. Permission is being sought to spend $2.4 million to build a much-enlarged facility. Is this the right goal related to firefighting on Mayne Island? 

Last week, friends of mine received bad news from their insurance company. Their policy for one of their properties rose by about $2,400 a year because they were only “semi-protected” from fire by existing, apparently inadequate, water facilities. Not only that, but the insurance company immediately increased the premiums for their other properties. Their total hit will exceed $5,000 per year.

What do you mean, “existing, apparently inadequate, water facilities”? Well, there’s a bit of the story there. My friends’ insurance company emailed our Fire Chief asking him to indicate the level of fire protection on a property connected to the Village Point Improvement District facilities and has a ‘standpipe’ – so there is water. The Fire Chief Responded as follows:

·         “The fire hydrant you refer to is not a “Fire Hydrant” – it is a flush point used by the water district and they have generously fitting (sic) it with a fire department threaded connection for general use only. It does not meet any NFPA requirements for fire hydrant protection…”

·         Although the access is difficult for our large fire trucks (emphasis added) I am confident we can gain access to both homes either directly or with longer hose lays.”

You can imagine that this was not the kind of response the owners expected. The letter indicates a challenge with regard to adequate water supply, which the insurance company requires being within 300 meters of a building. It also indicates a challenge in reaching the property with specific equipment and implies that some of our fire equipment may not be appropriate for the Mayne landscape. An independent insurance professional confirmed that those challenges are major issues for insurance companies. They are risk averse and try to protect themselves.

The point of this letter is that the Fire Chief’s response to the insurance company puts all Mayne Island property owners at risk for significant increases in their insurance premiums.

If you don’t believe that this is a real problem, note that this property owner was immediately affected related to other properties. It will soon be common knowledge among insurance companies that Mayne Island properties lack appropriate firefighting capabilities and, consequently, all of our premiums will increase! Mine certainly will because I deal with the same companies.

We all need to ask ourselves if the expenditure of funds on a building, the new Fire Hall, is the appropriate expenditure. Is this not just a house for equipment that ignores “existing, apparently inadequate, water facilities”? In simple terms, is this where we should spend our hard-earned money? Note also that the Fire Hall will cost my friends an additional over $900 per year.

I am also concerned about leadership with respect to firefighting. The previous proposal was DOA due to a financial mistake. Now we have another proposal other islands have been able to address less expensively. Add to that the letter that went to the insurance company. It’s understandable to wonder if leadership is an issue.

As you vote on the new Fire Hall proposal, please consider if this is the best use of funds. Should we construct expensive facilities that house pretty equipment, or should we deal with the significant problem of addressing firefighting on Mayne Island. Do we want a monument? Or do we want solutions?

Dominic Covvey

Hi Dominic:

A Rational Approach

In response to many questions from community members, Mayne Island Residents & Ratepayers Association has compiled the following alternate proposal for a new firehall for your consideration. MIRRA is in no way competing with MIID on this project but taking a different approach in presenting an alternate model for public consideration.

MIID has done the hard work of creating a basic costing, siting and planning from which we can now easily extrapolate the numbers and apply them to an alternate plan of construction.

This alternative proposal incorporates suggestions from the community and consultants which go all the way from current, back to the previous referendum and that have been applied to other districts’ new firehalls.

This alternative proposal is not intended to be exact but accurate within a reasonable estimate.

MIRRA hopes you will find this comparison between the two strategies interesting and informative.

MIID Proposal:

1)    Site Preparation- $224,750

2)    Temporary facilities, Moving and Storage costs, Interest, Insurance, Permits, Legal- $256,250

3)    Total- $481,000

4)    Building design, management & construction- $1,596,372

5)    Contingency- $316,161 (20% of building costs)

6)    Total- $2,393,533

Alternative Proposal:

1)    Building- $998,932

2)    Contingency- $199,786

3)    Upgrade and renovate existing building- $250,000

4)    Buy new land, site prep, insurance etc.- $168,300

5)    Total costs for new firehall-  $1,617,018

Alternative Proposal details:

Including the cost of buying 1 acre of the westerly property, upgrading, re-cladding and renovating the old firehall up to a safety standard including new administration offices, still reduces site preparation, demolition etc. costs a total-  $62,700.00

As a bonus we keep the existing water tanks and all infrastructure, and leave the school house where it is. 

Upgrading, re-cladding and renovating the existing building eliminates the need for 3,167 square feet of administrative area in the new building. This space would be accommodated in the upgraded and renovated existing building. This eliminates $506,720 in construction, design, and management costs of the new hall @ $160/sq.ft. and eliminates the need for 1,134 square feet of mezzanine area @ about $80/sq. ft. –  $90,720

Building costs savings-  $597,440.00

 Engineering estimated costs to bring old building to standard- $100,000

Estimated costs to close in old truck bays and convert to office space and community space, re-clad the exterior- $150,000

Contingency on proposed Alternative Building $ 199,786 @ 20% of building cost total contingency savings- $116,374

Alternative Proposal total savings estimate:

Total Savings- $776,514

Plus-

Alternate Proposal loan interest savings over 20 years;

Interest Savings estimate- $300,000

MIRRA presents here a comparison for the new building if different choices and priorities are given more consideration.

More savings which can also be gained, for example:

1) Building a conventional 4 bay structure allows for simple and easy future expansion, if that is even ever required. The Alternative Proposal is based upon the current MIID 6 bay drive thru model because those are MIID numbers to which a comparison can be made.

 2) Parcel tax instead of an assessment saves taxpayers the quoted $8,000 per year in Government collection charges and utilizes more beneficially the $40,000 software program bought in 2013, for the Heath Centre tax collection. The firehall would just be a simple line item addition to that collection.

 3) A fixed-price quote as opposed to the current cost-plus estimate should eliminate the requirement of a 20% contingency, which in almost all cases will be fully consumed. In a fixed-price quote, any cost over runs are the problem of the contractor.

4) A drive thru garage is not critical. In cities where land is in short supply and halls are built on lots, trucks back into the hall from the street. In our circumstance, most of the time, the rear truck will remain in the hall on a call out, therefore, when the truck returns, it will be backing in anyway. Why use up all of our land creating ring around roads for an unnecessary drive through design? Why go to the considerable extra expense of a drive thru?

Certain cost items may have been overlooked in this proposal, as are also potentially more savings.

However, the projected savings of over $3/4 million are sufficient to warrant a serious look at the current MIID proposal.

The Alternative Proposal outlined here is not from MIRRA alone but also follows some of the recommendations of the Consultant hired by MIID in 2011. As well it utilizes methods implemented in new firehall construction projects in areas such as North Saanich, Port Coquitlam, East Sooke, and Saturna Island etc.

This Alternative Proposal might have been implemented had the MIID held the requested public meetings during their planning process. The following positive points are readily obvious:

• The old school house need not be moved;
• More land acquired for future expansion;
• Added community space;
• Saves infrastructural components of existing property which tax dollars have already paid for;
• Better utilizes tax dollars and saves the community over $3/4 million;
• All work upgrading, renovating, and re-cladding the existing building can be done using local contractors and materials;

Finally, this project can go to referendum this summer and commence work at any time and we don’t waste money relocating the fire department during construction.

 Please forward this information to anyone you know who may be interested, and check for updates on the MIRRA website: www.maynebc.com

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.

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:

Mayne Island Residents and Ratepayers Association
March 2011 Newsletter

MIRRA Maintains “VOTE NO” Position on Fire Hall Referendum

Sound Reasons to Vote No:

• $3.4 million for this project is too expensive and puts us in heavy debt for too long.
• We face other upcoming infrastructure costs (health centre expansion) and our small tax base will soon need to meet these demands as well.
• MIID needs to heed all the tax payers concerns and adopt an attitude of fiscal restraint in a time of economic uncertainty.
• Parcel tax is the usual form of levy for such projects and is the fairest way to share the cost among property owners in the community.
• Mayne Island’s fire hall problem can be solved for much less than $3.4 million; our neighbors on Saturna have shown this.
• Superior Shuttle Service certification remains a possibility with a more economical fire hall design; it is not dependent on this more costly version.

MIRRA recommends a NO vote to send this project back to the drawing board for a more affordable solution.

How a Community Makes Decisions

Of all the levels of government that impact our lives, the Mayne Island Improvement District is the one closest to us, and most within our reach to influence. There’s no shame or offense in daring to question this body that is here to serve us. It is the right of citizens to hold their government accountable and freely communicate their opinions, especially on complex and controversial proposed projects they (and their descendants) will have to pay for. So, take a chance – talk to your friends and neighbors about the referendum question. Share your views and questions. Then vote – for the solution that solves the problem with the least possible financial hardship for the community.

MIID AGM: April 16th

Wouldn’t it be nice if the Improvement District posted the financial report on their website ahead of the AGM to allow for meaningful examination by the community? And how about allowing some time for candidates for the three available Trustee positions to introduce themselves and their reasons for running? Candidates and electors deserve it.

Memberships and donations are what cover expenses.

MIRRA sent out over 1,000 letters to off-island property owners February 1st, to make sure they received information they would not hear from the Mayne Island Improvement District, and recommending a No vote on the fire hall referendum.

If you would like to support the work of MIRRA, individual memberships are $10 and donations are gratefully accepted.
MIRRA S1-C55, Mayne Island, BC, V0N2J0

MIRRA’s purposes are:

To scrutinize the taxation and levies imposed on our residents from the five levels of government;

To lobby elected, appointed and other officials to obtain the best possible services for the community;

To monitor the processes being used to impose taxes and recommend changes to improve transparency and accountability of the organizations imposing the levies;

Communicate with our residents and the broader public through articles and electronic media.

Respectfully submitted by the MIRRA Executive
Bob McKinnon, Colleen Ming, Barry Wilks, Dave Lindquist, Wayne Ming
www.maynebc.com mayneratepayers@shaw.ca