HomeMy Public PortalAbout7/29/2002 specialCity ®f Greencastle
® City Hall
One North Locust Street
P.O. Box 607
Greencastle, Indiana 46135
Pamela S. Jones
Clerk- Treasurer
GREENCASTLE COiNTMON COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION
MONDAY, JULY 29, 2002 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL
The Greencastle Common Council met in Special Session Monday, July 29, 2002, 6:00 p.m. at
City Hall. Mayor Michael called the meeting to Order at 6:10 p.m. On the Roll Call, the
following were found to be present: Councilor Roach, Councilor Hammer, Councilor Sedlack,
Councilor Liechty and Councilor Rokicki.
Ordinance 2002 -8, An Ordinance Establishing the Size of Departments of City Government of
the City of Greencastle, Indiana Fixing Salaries for the Employees of Such Departments and
Fixin the Salaries of Certain Other Appointed Officials for the Year 2003, first reading. Motion
to Waive the reading of Ordinance 2002 -8 was made by Councilor Hammer, seconded by
Councilor Liechty. Vote was unanimous.
• Mayor Michael stated that raises were given to employees in the amount of $800.00 (Eight
Hundred Dollars), Department Heads were given $1,200.00 (Twelve Hundred Dollars) and part-
time was raised to $9.00 (Nine Dollars) per hour. Entry level will stay at $19,100.00 (Nineteen
Thousand One Hundred Dollars), Mayor Michael further stated the fifteenth firefighter was
added as was the ICE student for the fire department. There was a question as to whether ICE
students were going to be paid $5.15 per hour or $5.60 per hour. Councilor Roach made the
motion to pay the fire ICE student $5.15 per hour without Firefighter 1 Certification and $5.60 an
hour with Firefighter 1 Certification. Motion was seconded by Councilor Hammer. Vote was
unanimous.
Street Department Salaries were corrected as follows:
Machine Operator #1 $19,100.00 - 19,900.00 instead of $20,100.00
Sign Maintenance $19,100.00 - 19,900.00 instead of $19,100.00
Truck Driver/Laborer #2 $19,100.00 - 19,900.00 instead of $20,100.00
Cemetery part-time help was changed from two at $9.00 per hour x 1248 hours each to $9.00 an
hour for a total of 2,496 hours. Cemetery Superintendent Robinson stated he has one part-time
person that has been there since 1991 that he works more than 1248 hours a year.
Corrections to Park salaries were as follows:
® Full -Time Seasonal Director was changed to Full -Time Assistant Director and Seasonal
Maintenance was changed to $8.00 from $7.65 per hour for a total of $12,160.00 instead of
$11,935.00.
® Wastewater Superintendent Mike Neese asked that the Assistant Superintendent position be
deleted from the Salary Ordinance and Collection System Laborer be added with a salary of
$19,100.00 - $19,900.00 be added. Part-Time @ $9.00 per hour x 800 hours for a salary of
$7,200.00 was also added. Senior Clerk was decreased from $25,000.00 to $24,700.00 and
Collection Clerk was decreased from $ 22,910.00 to $22,610.00. Clerk- Treasurer Jones stated
she had put these in with an $1,100.00 raise due to adjustments made in the past to other salaries
and the fact that these people have been with the City 16 and 13 years respectively. CT Jones
stated she feels we should reward loyalty. According to I.C. 36 -4 -7 -3 (d), The city clerk may,
with the approval of the legislative body, fix the salaries of deputies and employees appointed
under I.C. 36- 4 -11 -4.
Water Superintendent Terry Dale asked that the Machine Operator and Laborer #2 be deleted
from the Ordinance. Other adjustments made to water department salaries as follows: Senior
Clerk from $19,100.00 instead of $19,200.00 for a starting salary to $27,912.00 instead of
$28,300.00 as proposed by the CT and the Billing Clerk from $19,100.00 to $21,984.00 instead
of $23,100.00 as proposed. These two employees have been with the City for 25 years and 5
years respectively.
The last correction for the Salary Ordinance was the CT Secretary/Bookkeeper which was
chan from $19,100.00 - $20,000.00 to $19,100.00 to $19,900.00.
Motion to approve Ordinance 2002 -8 with the above corrections was made by Councilor
Sedlack, seconded by Councilor Rokicki. Vote was unanimous.
Ordinance 2002 -9, An Ordinance Fixing the Salaries of Elected Officers of the City of
Greencastle for the Year 2001, first reading. Councilor Roach stated the salary for Mayor is too
low and by maintaining the low salary you eliminate everyone from running for office except the
retired, wealthy and second income people. Councilor Roach suggested increasing both Mayor
and Clerk- Treasurer salaries to $48,000.00 (Forty Eight Thousand) per year. Councilor Rokicki
stated we are all public servants and no one is paid enough. Councilor Sedlack stated he agrees
with Councilor Roach.
Councilor Roach made the motion to raise both Mayor and Clerk- Treasurer salaries to
$48,000.00 annually, seconded by Councilor Sedlack. Vote as follows:
Councilor Roach, yes; Councilor Hammer, no; Councilor Sedlack, yes; Councilor Liechty,
no; and Councilor Rokicki, no. This motion fails.
Councilor Hammer made the motion to approve Ordinance 2002 -9 as read, seconded by
Councilor Rokicki. Vote as follows:
Councilor Roach, no; Councilor Hammer, yes; Councilor Sedlack, yes; Councilor Liechty,
no and Councilor Rokicki, no. This motion also failed.
Councilor Roach made the motion to eliminate Council increase and increase the Mayor and
Clerk - Treasurer salaries to $45,000.00, seconded by Councilor Sedlack. Vote as follows:
Councilor Roach, yes, Councilor Hammer, no; Councilor Sedlack, yes; Councilor Liechty,
yes and Councilor Rokicki, no. This motion did pass by 3 -2. Councilor Rokicki asked how you
explain to City employees that the Mayor and Clerk- Treasurer are getting a $7,000.00 raise as
opposed to their $800.00 raise. Councilor Roach responded that he would tell them the Mayor
® and Clerk are elected and if they want the salary to run for the office.
Mayor Michael stated she will veto the raise. Councilor Roach stated that the raise is not for her
personally, but for the position and to allow anyone who wants to run for the offices and not be
held back due to income. Councilor Roach further stated he wants the Mayor and Clerk -
Treasurer positions to be paid more in accordance to the position.
The Eastside Waterworks and Fire Substation Study was the next item to be discussed. City
Engineer Morrow passed out estimated costs for the Eastside Waterworks Phase I Program and
answers to questions asked after the May 29th meeting.
Mayor Michael stated the discussion with the Fire Substation, stating "we" understand we cannot
build a fire substation at this time. The cost to build a stand alone substation is estimated to be
$1,471,065.00 with a need for approximately nine additional firefighters at an approximate cost of
$43,000.00 per person with the cost of personnel rising each year. A stand alone main for the
water department is estimated at $1,867,962.00. The recommendation is to start increasing
manpower now to phase this part in. Fire Chief Bill Newgent stated he is understaffed now and
cannot meet the OSHA requirement of two in; two out when responding to a fire. The purpose
of this study is for us to look at the future and allow us to plan for the next five to ten years.
Councilor Hammer asked if we can erect a metal building on the eastside and man with two men
during the day. Councilor Roach stated that we are approaching this as if the substation would
® have no value without being manned. This is not true, Councilor Roach stated. We currently
have two pieces of equipment we cannot house in the current fire station, the hazmat vehicle and
the new smokehouse. It was noted that two firefighters have been added since 1996 with an
additional one being added in the 2003 budget.
Mayor Michael stated the Eastside Waterworks Project was a priority by other boards that were
in attendance at the May 29th meeting and that is moving along at this time. Land is being
purchased at this time for a new well -field and Redevelopment Commission and CACFID are both
very supportive of this project.
RFQ's for design of the new Eastside Waterworks Project have gone out and are due back by
August 30th.
Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Rokicki, seconded by Councilor Hammer. Vote was
unanimous.
Nancy A. ' hael, Mayor
ATTEST;, 1
Pamela S. Jones,
?�X17
�'
ENCENTERS • ARCHITECTS • SCIENTISTS
PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
CITY OF GREENCASTLE, IN
EAST SIDE WATERWORKS
FIRST PHASE PROGRAM
June 12, 2002
PROGRAM SCOPE
First phase of East Side Waterworks will incorporate waterworks elements considered to be the
minimum program to meet current potable water supply and fire protection needs for the City of
Greencastle, Indiana; these elements are:
• One new well, (1) 1,500 gpm (2.160 mad)
• 12 inch raw water line from new well field to new East Side plant (1,800 LF)
• 3,000 gpm aerator and 1,500 gpm (2.160 mad) gravity filter module.
• Filtered water reservoir, 90,000 gal.
• Filter backwash residuals handling system.
• Generator set for full operation during power outage event.
• CR 100 E 12 inch water line.
® ESTIMATED COSTS
11
Estimated project costs for the East Side Waterworks first phase are shown below. Each element
will be examined in detail during the design phase of the project.
Item
Waterworks Element
Estimated Cost Range
1
One new well, (1) 1,500 gpm (2.160 mad)
$150,000
$150,000
2
12 inch raw water line from well field to plant.
(1,800 LF)
90,000
100,000
3
3,000 gpm aerator and 1,500 gpm (2.160 mad)
gravity filter module
1,785,000
1,983,000
4
Filtered water reservoir, 90,000 gal.
85,000
100,000
5
High Service Pumping Station (duplex)
85,000
105,000
6
Filter backwash residuals handling system.
60,000
70,000
7
Generator set, for full operation during power
outage event. (500 kw)
102,000
110,000
8
CR 100 E 12 inch DIP water line. (5,300 LF)
250,000
280,000
9
Sub -total
$2,607,000.00
$2,898,000.00
10
Contingencies 10%
260,000
289,000
11
Construction Administration
78,000
86.000
12
Total Construction
$2,945,000.00
$3,273,000.00
13
Land
30,000
40,000
14
Administration and Engineering
158,000
178.000
15
Total Project Cost
$ 3,133,000.00
$3,491,000.00
M9proj \0163\012ffER \per cost review 6- 3- 02\,reencastle first phase east side waterworks 12.doc Page 1 of 1
City of Greencastle � x �
Water Tower / Fire Station Evaluation �"
® Below are questions asked at the Informational meeting on Wednesday, May 29, 2002.
This memo is to properly address, in writing, answers to those questions. Some questions
with similar answers are grouped together.
These answers are provided by:
• Bill Newgent- Fire Chief, Terry Dale
• Water Superintendent
The evaluation steering group
And the representatives from the consultants Paul I. Cripe and DLZ.
_Water Svstem Ong
1. We have a 1996 water plant that is operating at 50% capacity- what does a
secondary plant buy us?
• The 1996 water plant is designed to h dl fl
e
gn an a ows cc what it is
currently producing on averaee- NON DROUGHT days. The
problem is the well field is only capable of producing sustained
production at its current rate or we would deplete the source of our
supply. Every week we do run flows through the existing plant at
rates over 4 million gallons per day, but we cannot do this for
extended periods of time.
During wet weather periods we have the source water to run the plant
at design capacity, but during dry periods we do not have enough
source water fro domestic and fire fighting requirements.
We need to look at capacities for plant and wells
Production Capacities
Existing Plant......... 4.35 mgd .....3,021 gpm
Existing Well Field.4.032 mgd .....2,800 gpm- NON DROUGHT
Supply Needs
Ave. Day .................1.88 mgd .......1,305 gpm
Fire Flow ................4.32 mgd....... 3,000 gpm
6.20 mgd....... 4,305 gpm
Supply Available
Existing Well Field. 4.032 mgd .....2,800 gpm- NON DROUGHT
New Well Field....... 2.160 mgd ..... gpm
6.192 mgd .....4,300 gpm
Shortfall draw, storage 0.008 mgd = 6 gpm- NON DROUGHT
•
• In addition, a secondary plant buys us greatly increased viability. If a
serious problem should occur with the existing plant and its one point
of entry into the distribution system, a secondary plant and entry
Council, Board of Works, Redevelopment, and CACFID
Page 3 of 7
Total SWAG = $730,000 to $790,000
e Probable range = $650,000 to $800,000
• When we had a consultant start to look at the cost of replacement for
the 231 - viaduct project, we anticipated that the costs would be much
higher than $800,000. MOT placed the entire project on hold, so we
never finished construction plans nor completed an engineer's
estimate.
5. Can we abandon the existing water main?
® Yes, it would be possible to abandon at least a sizeable portion of the
old 114 year old line if we have the second treatment plant with it's tie
in at Albin Pond Road. The ability to move substantial amounts of
water through two entry points will make a huge hydraulic
advantage. Just how good would have to be determined by a
hydraulic analysis.
• The customers that receive their water from the old line would have to
be connected and served from other lines in the general area.
6 Would the connection to the existing system beat Albin Pond Road?
• Yes, in the area of intersection of CR 100E and Albin Pond Road.
This is the best point to tie into our existing system at this point in the
study.
7. Would filling in a missing link on Calbert Way improve the systems hydraulics?
• Yes, filling in any missing link on a major waterline will improve the
system hydraulics. Whether it is necessary to do this would have to be
evaluated
8. Are there other funding sources besides the TIF district?
• Yes. Small Cities Program, SRF Water Program, and the CDBG /State
Program. There may be future Federal funding opportunities
addressing water system security. Additional work on increasing
capacity for the East Side Waterworks would quite probably be
within the scope of a Federal water supply security program.
Fire Station Only
9. Have we projected the operating costs for the new fire station?
• The City of Greencastle Fire Department estimated manpower
projections for a new fire station are as follows:
➢ The fire department would need to add a minimum of 9 new
firefighters to their staff to adequately maintain the proposed
fire station. The approximate cost per firefighter, including
e
Council, Board of Works, Redevelopment, and CACFID
Page 5 of 7
• heart of campus where there is often several college students crossing
the roads.
• Firefighter safety and safety of the public is the most important goal
of the Department. Decreasing the time traveled on fire runs would be
a great step towards reaching that goal.
• Along with factories increasing manpower comes along an increase of
the product that they are making, some of which were a large amount
of hazardous chemicals to produce. We have had several fires in these
factories involving hazardous chemicals. We have had two involving
paint booths and several involving some of their waste products.
• Although most of these factories are sprinkled, sprinkler systems may
only contain the fire and may not entirely extinguish it.
• Not only do we have the factories to deal with, the airport has plans to
expand by adding anew runway, allowing bigger jets to land in
Greencastle. A station out east would locate us closer to the airport
in the event of an incident involving an airplane.
• There are a large number of multi- family housing units in the area
that would be better served by a second station out east. The number
of residents living in these units is a big concern of ours. We have had
several fires in these units in the past and we will have more in the
future. We have had a fire fatality in one of these units; a quicker
response might have made a difference.
• • A better response time is greatly needed for the large complexes due
to the high density of residents that increase the life threat in this
area.
• In general a station out east would serve the public in many ways.
➢ The people who live in this area,
➢ who work in this area
➢ people just passing thru, and
➢ shopping in the area.
11. Why did we not look at locating a new fire station at le and Indianapolis?
12. Would the Round Barn Road site provide better coverage than the Old Industrial
Park?
13. Except for the hospital, the zinc mill site does not provide any additional coverage
from the current site.
14. We only looked at 4 sites for a new station- does this mean that the study is
incomplete?
15. Should we move. the 2" station towards Edgelea?
16. If we had a blank map, where is the ideal location for a 2 d fire station?
• The locations that are suggested and are considered in the study are
locations that would be representative of appropriate sites in order to
show a trend for fire protection coverage. The specific site locations
e will be finalized in the design phase of the project that will more
Council, Board of Works, Redevelopment, and CACFID
Page 7 of 7
18. Are there other funding sources besides the TIF district?
® • There may be additional funding resources available, the fire
department and the City of Greencastle will explore every option for
grants, in kind donations and low interest loans. The use of a financial
advisor could also help identify additional funding options.
Both Fire and Water
19. Should we think of these projects as separate projects? Or one project?
a Originally, the concept of combining the two projects sounded feasible
to save money. With the obstacles we have run into concerning sites
for erecting a water tower, it is our opinion that the two projects be
treated separately.
• Additionally, each project should be separate even though the mission
of each project is the same and that is to provide better fire protection
to the residents and business owners of the eastside of Greencastle.
• Financial advisors may also suggest on the possibilities of better
financial terms or more finance options depending on a combined or
separate project approach.
E