2006-08-22 Special Meeting
FIRE PROTECTION AREA NO.1 BOA
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
August 22, 2006 @ 7:30 P.M.
BA YSIDE FIRE HALL
~ D~C ~; :06 ~ ~
BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE
CALL TO ORDER:
CHAIR S. ARNDT called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Scott Arndt, Chair
Andrew DeVries
Mike Dolph
Absent:
Cliff Davidson
Greg Spalinger,
Vice Chair
Staff:
Chief Bob Himes, Ex-Officio
Jessica Kepley, ElF
Bud Cassidy, ElF
A quorum was established.
D. MATHERS was also present. Matt Corrier arrived later during the meeting.
It was MOVED, M. DOLPH and SECONDED, A. DEVRIES to excuse the two absent
members, C. DAVIDSON and G. SPALINGER. The motion PASSED unanimously.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
It was MOVED, M. DOLPH, and SECONDED, A. DEVRIES to accept the agenda as
presented. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
VISITOR'S COMMENTS:
None.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Apparatus/SpecslBidJPurchase
CHAIR ARNDT explained to the Board the purpose of the meeting was to approve the
specs for the new Rescue vehicle they intended to go to bid for. Board discussed the
specifications of the vehicle which were similar to the Triple Combo Pumper.
Commitment was made by the manufacturer for a 2006 engine for the new vehicle.
Savings of almost $40,000 would be given if purchasing a 2006 engine vs. a 2007
engine/chassis.
He discussed with the Board the attempt to tag on the new vehicle to the existing bid for
the Pumper truck. The Manager felt the intent was good, but apprehensive if it would
i
~
~
pass the Assembly. The Borough attorney was presently reviewing this intention. B.
CASSIDY told the Board that the attorney was also reviewing the bids that were received
for the Pumper truck to determine the qualification response from Pierce/Hughes and
Quality Sales. Although Pierce was not the lowest bid, the Quality bid was potentially
non-responsive. The attorney would determine whether the Board was correct in their
decision. The attorney was also reviewing the Bid Packet that was distributed to
determine the validity, making sure it was a solid packet.
CHAIR ARNDT told the Board he was looking at the second vehicle in order to
standardize the vehicles within the Bayside Department and potentially within the City.
The new 2007 engine would require reconfiguration to the vehicle chassis and engine
compartment. There is a potential savings of $8-16,000. Specifications for the Saber
engine (Triple Combo Pumper) were used for the specifications on the new Rescue
vehicle. Delivery of this second vehicle is expected to be with eleven months.
M. DOLPH raised the question re piggy backing the second vehicle with the first vehicle
to the Assembly. He stated his concern that the "like piece of apparatus", although similar
in some areas, differed on a landslide of other things, so it was not an exact "like piece of
equipment"; and wondered what the attorney's interpretation would be regarding this.
B. CASSIDY responded there is very strong logic in the reason in the proposal to the
Assembly, the difference is in what does the Code allow the Board to do?
S. ARNDT stated the reason for this was also to save the tax payers' money. But the
discussion would need to be held with the Assembly.
Upon further discussion the CHAIR pointed out one of the main things that was wrong
with the proposal submitted by Quality was there were not detailed specifications of the
vehicle they were offering included in their response. B. CASSIDY clarified for the
Board that the non-responsive determination was not due to one thing, but a series of
discrepancies that aided in the decision.
Concerns were discussed regarding the Board's decision to go before the Assembly with
a request to add a "like piece" of equipment to the current purchase. A. DEVRIES
brought forward his concern whether the Department should consider a Rescue vehicle
vs. a Pumper vehicle. He asked if they needed something that would transport manpower
or something that would raise the ISO rating for the department. Discussion was held,
options were given by the CHAIR, it was determined that the Department would be
keeping the current tanker on hand, because it was in good shape and usable. CHIEF
HIMES told the Board that the option to include WBFD's new tanker as an automatic
rp:~non~p: vp:hirlp: to ~rp:np:~ r01l1rl hp: imnlp:mp:ntp:r1 :mrl wOlllrl hp: hp:lnflll to:i11
~--r-"-- . _ou_,_ -- ___u__ ---.- -- ""r------"--- -..- .. --~- -- "--r~-~ __ _uo
Brief budget discussions were held. It was approximated the Board had $1,400,000 to use
for equipment purchase and construction of the addition to the department. Half of these
funds were going to be used for the vehicle purchases. Since the prices of equipment has
been increasing in recent years, the Board is looking at possibly borrowing money that
will be needed for the construction to the Department and paying off the loaned money
within 3 years. After brief discussion of the budget, including discussion of the addition
to be completed on the Station, CHAIR asked for a motion from the Board to purchase
the new rescue vehicle. It was MOVED, M. DOLPH and SECONDED, A. DEVRIES to
purchase a new Heavy Duty Walk-In Rescue vehicle. The motion PASSED with a
unanimous voice vote from the Board members.
M. DOLPH addressed his concerns on purchasing the new vehicles, using over 50% of
the fund balance for the department's budget. However, he said that he felt optimistic in
the Board's recent decisions.
S. ARNDT told the Board he felt the purchase of the new vehicles would benefit the
community of the Fire Protection Area, as well as the City of Kodiak. His intention is to
look forward to future investments for the Station. CHAIR encouraged the Board to be
present at the upcoming Assembly Work Session (August 31).
M. DOLPH asked the CHAIR what the intentions were should the attorney come back
with a negative answer on the piggy backing of the two vehicles. CHAIR replied his
intention was to go ahead with the award of the Pumper to Pierce Manufacturing and to
continue the bid process for the Rescue vehicle specifying the 2006 engine within the bid
specifications.
B. CASSIDY asked for clarification of the differences on the two vehicles, Rescue vs. the
Pumper. He was told that everything behind the cab is different. CHIEF HIMES clarified
that the Rescue is basically a box, and the Pumper includes a pump and a tank. Wheels,
frame, drive train and cab are the same for both vehicles; both vehicles are to be
standardized with the same mirrors, transmission, switches, etc. The rescue vehicle is
more beneficial for use during motor vehicle accidents; extrication tools will be readily
available.
BOARD COMMENTS:
S. Arndt. None.
A. DeVries. None.
M. Dolph. Stated the he would not be able to attend the August 31 Assembly work
session, due to conflict in schedule.
MEETING SCHEDULE:
Tentative meeting scheduled for September 19, 2006.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
I
;:;1
SUBMITTED BY:
Date: f~/.'1 /L~,:
APPROVED BY:
5~,o# 4rr7~
Scott Arndt, Chair
Fire Protection Area No.1 Board
Date: / ~ - 7 -.,,1,tJ06~