Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020.04.24 Special Council Minutes MINUTES McCall City Council Special Meeting McCall City Hall – VIA Teleconference April 24, 2020 Call to Order and Roll Call Work Session Business Agenda Adjournment CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Giles called the special meeting of the McCall City Council to order at 9:30 a.m. Mayor Giles, Council Member Holmes, Council Member Maciaszek, Council Member Nielsen, and Council Member Sowers all answered roll call. City staff members present were Anette Spickard, City Manager; BessieJo Wagner, City Clerk; Erin Greaves, Communications Manager; Michelle Groenevelt, Community Development Director; Rick Stein, Airport Manager; Nathan Stewart, Public Works Director; Levi Brinkley, Water Superintendent; Also, in attendance was David Triplett, CRSA Architecture; Scott Duffin, Horrocks Engineers; WORK SESSION AB 20-133 Public Works Facility Master Plan – Plan Development Work Session #2 Public Works Director Nathan Stewart presented the work session for the Public Works Facility Master Plan – Plan Development and gave a brief historical overview. The City of McCall, Idaho has commissioned Horrocks Engineers and CRSA Architects to develop a Master Plan that evaluates the existing Public Works facilities at 518 N. Samson Trail, and make recommendations for modifications and improvements to those facilities in support the short- and long-term operations of the Department. In December 20, 2019, the project team conducted its first work session with City Council. There was a presentation of both the needs matrix as well as the cost matrix portions of the report with an emphasis on discussing the immediate critical life safety and operational needs. Staff focused on three main focus areas of the final report which are: 1. Reviewing immediate critical life safety and operational needs with a focus on anticipated costs 2. Presenting conceptual on-site structure and utility plans that identify both near- and long- term improvements MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 1 of 5 April 24, 2020 Special Meeting 3. Discussing with Council the overall costs of smaller, annual incremental investment vs. one-time, full replacement of the PW Facility as well as the feasibility and challenges of both approaches. David Triplett, CRSA Architecture briefly explained the three Case scenarios: Case #1 – Improve existing facilities through a series of incremental smaller projects over time Case #2 – Complete site reconstruction by leveling the current facility and rebuilding new Case #3 – Relocate the Public Works Department operations to a new alternate site Due to the understanding of City funding and budget constraints and staff direction, the report is primarily focused on Case #1. However, if either Case #2 or #3 were to be pursued, the cost analysis is still valid. Mr. Triplett went through Case #1 pointing out several issues of concerns regarding code compliance, health and safety issues, and functionality. Next, he listed and explained the different short term incremental improvements to meet operational needs including an environmental survey, re-zoning to Civic, record of survey to combine parcels, master grading and drainage plan, fencing, security lights, resolve neighboring driveway issues, changes to electrical service, vehicle wash bay, covered storage, water truck fill station, propane tanks, accommodate fiber-optic utilities, and a new heated storage area for equipment. Long term or future operational facility needs would require new construction of additional heated and unheated storage, heated sign shop, new water department shops and storage, and new administrative offices and vehicle shops. There is the possibility the cost to fix the existing buildings could exceed the cost of building new. Mr. Triplett explained the Cost Planning Matrix and Concept Phasing Plan for Case #1. Scott Duffin of Horrocks Engineers shared information about the property, access, site utilities, parking, and drainage issues that all need to be addressed. Public Works Director Nathan Stewart pointed out other problems to be resolved including City snow storage on the property and complicated sewer issues. Mr. Triplett and Public Works Director Stewart covered the Cost Planning Matric and Concept Phasing Plans for Case #2 and #3 and shared the differences between the two. Council Member Sowers inquired if an alternate location idea was to be entertained, where would staff recommend for a new location and if the plan regarding the driveway of adjoining property had been discussed with the neighbors. Public Works Director Stewart stated River Front Park would be the first place he would investigate for relocation but there are challenges to work through that would take some very creative thinking to make the site work because of the size, community snow storage use, and a 6F Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Compliance designation by the National Park Service. As for the driveway issue, the encroachment is very small, and he did not anticipate any significant issues with the neighbor. Staff will reach out and set up discussions with the neighbor when the time comes. Council Member Holmes felt her questions regarding alternate sites had been answered but was interested in which plan staff felt was the best choice if the department was not to relocate. Public Works Director Stewart stated Cases #2 and #3 will take a significant investment such as a bond measure or saving funds over several years. Knowing the City budget, he feels Case #1 is really MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 2 of 5 April 24, 2020 Special Meeting the only one feasible at this time unless Council desires otherwise. A fiscal policy will need to be put in place in order to address either rebuilding or relocating. Council Member Maciaszek expressed concern with the River Front Park relocation due to the distance for snowplow and equipment work, and possible traffic issues on Mission Street. Public Works Director Stewart stated he did not feel the move to the park or to another satellite location would be detrimental to the department’s efficiency and would have some extra benefits. However, the current site is an established site to the community. The department traffic volume is relatively small in comparison to other community traffic and would not make much difference if the snow plowing started there or downtown. Council Member Maciaszek asked which Case scenario was preferred, if given a choice. Public Works Director Stewart stated if given a choice and funding was in place, he would choose to build on a fresh site as that would allow operations to continue as normal until the new facility was completed and would be much easier overall to start with a clean slate. However, he is viewing the choices from the standpoint of what can the City actually accomplish fiscally with what is already in place so is leaning toward Case #1. If the Council would like to pursue a new facility on the existing site or a new location, he will need their directive. Council Member Maciaszek commented there is some value on evaluating whether to move core services on all levels out of town or to keep everything centrally located. His preference is to keep city services centrally located due to efficiency. Council Member Nielsen still sees the potential of combining the Parks and Public Works departments and wanted staff feedback on that idea. Public Works Director Stewart stated the Council has already given direction for Parks to move to the Historical Museum site and a bond initiative to raise funds so it would take some swift and strong efforts to reevaluate the situation and map out new plans if Public Works were to move in with Parks. There would be challenges with relocating to the museum property due to the size of the property to house both departments adequately. He reiterated the decisions that have been made came down to what the City can do realistically with what funds were available and the timeframe for completion required. Combining both departments in a relocation plan could be possible and maybe desired but feasibility would need to be addressed. Council Member Nielsen clarified he was thinking of relocating both departments to River Front Park not the museum site and expressed frustration in it being too late for creating alternate plans. However, out of the three cases presented, he felt Case #1 a well thought out plan. Mayor Giles felt Case #1 is a well thought out plan as well, thought the site is a good location, and he is not intimidated by the cost. He stated he is comfortable with Case #1 and liked the smaller project approach without having to go to bond. He asked for the City Manager’s input. City Manager Anette Spickard wanted to emphasize from an employer’s perspective, she felt there was an obligation to resolve the immediate life safety issues pointed out in the short-term list and those should be prioritized regardless of what direction the Council decides on in the long-term. Over the next couple of months will show the financial impact of Covid-19 and how it will affect the City overall. The bond election is also taking place soon which will affect City projects. Mayor Giles asked the Council for feedback. Council Member Holmes felt staff and the engineers did well identifying issues, and most importantly, addressing the needs for health and safety. Council Member Sowers agreed with Council Member Holmes for the need to address the MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 5 April 24, 2020 Special Meeting immediate safety issues but still likes the idea of looking at alternate sites. Council Member Maciaszek agreed with prioritizing safety and to continue forward with Case #1. Council Member Nielsen felt the Council missed the opportunity to address worker safety, combining Parks and Public Works, and better utilizing the city properties in the downtown area. He does agree with prioritizing health and safety and thanked staff on doing great job on the plans and the phasing. Mayor Giles summarized the overall consensus was to move forward in finalizing this plan to use as a tool to take care of safety issues while waiting to see how the bond election pans out. Staff was directed to create a 5-year improvement plan based on Case #1. AB 20-132 McCall Local Housing Program Work Session Due to time constraints, Council moved AB 20-132 McCall Local Housing Program Work Session to the next regular Council meeting. BUSINESS AGENDA AB 20-134 Request Approval of CARES Act Funding Application for the Airport Airport Manager Rick Stein presented the CARES Act Funding application for the Airport. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) is a Federal Program to provide emergency assistance for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Under the CARES Airport Program, General Aviation Airports such as th McCall will receive an apportionment of CARES Act funding. On April 15, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that McCall Airport has been approved for $30,000 in CARES Act Funding. Funds can be used for a wide range of operations, maintenance and capital improvement projects. CARES Act funds are separate from Airport Improvement program funds and can be expended on a wider range of items with fewer restrictions. Staff received an email by William Garrison, Manager from the Helena Airports District Office outlining three options available as listed below: Option 1: The quickest option is to use all of the CARES Act funds for operational expenses, such as payroll, utility bills, or payment of debt service. This option will expedite processing of the CARES Act grant. Option 2: Use CARES Act funding on development or land acquisition projects. Coordination with the Airport District Office (ADO) contact to pursue funding for development projects. There are more prerequisites and requirements for construction projects, so this grant will not be issued as quickly. Option 3: Use some of the CARES Act funding on operational expenses and some on airport development. With this option, staff can submit an adjusted OMB SF-424 for the non-construction portion of the CARES Act funds. Coordination with the ADO contact to purse funding for the development project is required. Staff plans are to not expend the funds until the impact of the coronavirus’ financial effects on the Airport budget are known and leave decision making to a future date. It is the Staff’s recommendation to choose Option 1 as outlined. MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 4 of 5 April 24, 2020 Special Meeting Staff answered questions by Council Member Holmes on how these funds are allocated by the FAA and explained the funds do not have anything to do with the Federal funds that had been set aside for small business assistance. It is uncertain what the FAA will do with funds that are not accepted by municipalities. Staff experience with the FAA is any funds that do not get used go back into the pot to be given to another airport. Council Member Sowers wanted to know if the monies were actually needed. City Manager Anette Spickard explained the Airport has a slim operating budget for extra expenses so these funds are a welcomed resource that would not need a grant match and be applied to any operational expenses in need of assistance. The funds would be put aside for future use. Council Member Sowers expressed concerned about taking something when there is no direct need for it. He felt if the City does not have a direct need for the funds, he did not see the need to apply for the grant. Council Member Nielsen stated the probable outcomes of the Coronavirus is yet to be seen and will impact the City funding into the future. He sees this grant as a way to prepare for the unseen. Council Member Maciaszek felt, since these funds are allocated specifically for airports and the City has an opportunity to access the monies that would otherwise be given away to other airports, it is sensible to apply for the relief funds. He would like to move forward with Option 1. Council Member Maciaszek moved to approve the CARES Act Funding Application with Option 1 and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents. Council Member Holmes seconded the motion. In a roll call vote Council Member Maciaszek, Council Member Holmes, Mayor Giles, and Council Member Nielsen all voted aye, and Council Member Sowers voted no, and the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Without further business, Mayor Giles adjourned the meeting at 11:05 a.m. ATTEST: Robert S. Giles, Mayor BessieJo Wagner, City Clerk MCCALL CITY COUNCIL Page 5 of 5 April 24, 2020 Special Meeting