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