Digital Town Hall Meeting Offers Answers on Fire Hall #1 Replacement
Mayor and staff take questions from members of the media – image courtesy City of Prince George
Prince George, B.C.-The first of two digital town hall meetings on issues that are the basis for a referendum this fall, offered an opportunity to get some answers to questions about the proposal to replace Fire Hall #1.
250News readers had submitted questions they wanted asked, and most wanted to know why the location on Massey Drive was selected.
The answer has several points, first and foremost the location will allow a 50% increase in the area where Prince George Fire Rescue can achieve an 8 minute response time. That is critical to confining a fire to the room of origin and to reducing the risk of injury or death . Dave Mitchell, of Mitchell and Associates Ltd, says the location will improve response to areas on the east side of the Fraser River, in particular the industrial area .
Several sites were examined, some were privately owned, meaning the purchase price would boost the cost of the project higher. The City already owns the Massey Drive property which is the site for a new Fire Hall #1.
There will be a need to make some changes to the roadway to allow for left hand turns to the firehall, as well as the installation of traffic lights, but the City says those changes, estimated to cost $2 million, are included in the estimated $15 million dollar cost of the entire project.
If electors say yes to replacing the aging Fire Hall #1, the City would be authorized to borrow no more than $15 million dollars. Any cost over runs would have to come from reserves says City Manager Kathleen Soltis. The cost of servicing that debt is about $1 million a year, representing a 1% increase in municipal taxes, which the City says would amount to about $8.45 per $100 thousand dollars of assessment. However, those figures are based on today’s preferred interest rates, and the money wouldn’t actually be needed until 2019 when construction would be expected to start. It’s also important to note that the interest rate at the time of borrowing would be locked in for 5 years, and this would be a 20 year loan, so it is not clear on how much that debt servicing cost would be further down the road.
The new facility would have an expanded Emergency Operations Centre, 5 bays for fire vehicles, in addition to having improved space for training, . improved and expanded dispatch centre and improved services to reflect the addition of women to the department.
The existing Fire Hall #1 is 61 years old and has numerous deficiencies, including electrical, inability to house larger more modern equipment, not meeting current seismic requirements and cramped quarters to name just a few. The cost to upgrade the existing facility is pegged at $8 million dollars, but City Staff say, you would still have a building that is too small, and Fire Hall #1 would not be able to continue being able to service the community during such a major renovation.
City Staff say assessments of the other three firehalls in the City indicate they are well positioned to serve the community for many more years, so this is not a case of replacing Fire Hall #1 now, and needing to replace the others within a decade or two.
This evening, the second digital town hall will be held at 6 p.m. Tonight’s session will focus on questions about the Four Seasons Pool replacement project. If you have questions on that project, please email them to talk@250news.com
The digital townhall will be live streamed on the 250News facebook page, starting at 6 p.m.
Comments
Seems to me that they could renovate Hall No. 2 at 5th and Ospika, which already has room for the bigger ladder engine (Its presently at that location). There is space there for expansion for offices, etc; Response time would be (in my opinion) just as efficient as the response time from Masse to the East side of the Fraser River.
The present fire Hall No. 1 could then become No. 2 which would have sufficient space for the people and equipment working out of that facility.
This of course means maintaining the status quo, and spending less money. It also means that the space presently occupied by Hall No. 1 would not become available to the City.
Has the City looked at this option?????
Good idea but will not be shiny and new.
Pal, you make a very good case, but where will they put their long coveted PAC if they don’t tear down the firehall and pool?
Be careful Palopu, you make too much sense and the voice of reason is often criticized or otherwise attacked!
Seamutt, shiny and new is always the order of the day, when spending other people’s money! ;-)
duffer, your comment regarding the PAC is probably far more accurate than many at City Hall would ever admit.
Isn’t it so easy to tell them what to do…to bad you don’t know ant of the facts.
Any of the facts either :)
You should send all the routes you timed with the fire department for both locations.. I am sure they would appreciate the information.
Reminds me of a. Seinfeld episode…lol
P Val. Time to get out of your rocking chair and take a drive around the City. Do some timing yourself from the 7th avenue station to the BCR Industrial Site by using Queensway to 97 South. Then from Ospika and 5th to 97 South, and of course Masse to Highway 16 to 97 South and see what you come up with.
Let us know what you come up with.
I am not the one taking about response time… you are.. that why I am sure you have timed all the routes at different times of day etc to come up with your opinion.. so share them please .
One justification of replacing versus renovating #1 was that it would be taken out of service throughout such a project. I assume the same would apply to #2 under your suggestion leaving #1, #3 & #4 to cover the city for what likely would be a minimum 1 to 2 year project. There also could be a lot more to it than simply scabbing on a couple of additions. I have no idea when #2 was built but it could be it doesn’t meet the sort of codes that a new #1 would have to meet.
If you read the article you would note that the City says Hall’s 2,3,4 are good for years to come and state they would be good for a couple of decades.
A addition on the South side of No. 2 for offices, storage, and any other space they may need could be done without closing this station.
Its time that the City used whats inside their craniums and be more creative.
All we ever get from the City is that the buildings are to old and cannot be repaired. They are not in the right place. They do not meet present day rules and regulations, and on and on it goes. Most of these are nothing but thinly disguised excuses so that they can go forward with whatever their real plan is.
I suggest that if anyone has some leisure time they take a drive past Hall No. 2, 5th and Ospika and use your imagination to see if you could expand that station with little or no disruption.
Based on this and previous discussions, it’s clear that we can all smell the BS a mile away. Whether it’s in the form of the project costs, need, location, reasoning or lack of information, it lends itself to a NO vote. Voting yes,but perpetuates the BS coming out of City Hall. We need to send this back to them, and tell them to do better. They work for us, not the other way around.
The existing fire hall is 61 years old and does no longer meet present requirements. It is basically worn out. Nothing lasts forever, so now there are valid reasons for a replacement. While the new fire hall is under construction the old one can still provide basic protection.
I want to know where the 15 million dollar figure comes from. Are the firemen looking for a palace like the police or should we be building something functional and affordable?
Is the proposed Massey location on the “200 year” flood plain? If so, then not a good choice. Interestingly enough is the comment that there is a savings as the Massey site is already City owned—whereas the proposed pool site is not City owned. I think a new pool should not be built where the City is proposing as the demolition costs are an large unknown factor.ie. asbestos. I believe this entire pool /firehall scenario is a precursor for a PAC in a flood plain.
The cost to taxpayers will be much higher than the misleading $50 million on the referendum ballot.The price tag – from what we know – is going to be over $76 million. We haven’t been told what the demolition costs will be, if there will be cost overruns (building won’t start until 2019, costs usually don’t go down), or an increase in debt servicing. The City’s reasoning doesn’t make sense. Putting the new hall on flood plain when one of the reasons for moving it is because it’s on flood plain is ridiculous. Improved response time? For who? You improve response time for one area, you decrease it in another. City Councilors and Admin, start being upfront and honest with the taxpayer – something sorely lacking with this bunch, and come back to us with a full accounting and something that makes sense.
This isn’t about whether we need a new hall or not, if part of this plan doesn’t make sense, or seems ridiculous then vote NO. We need to send the clear message to City Hall that we expect better.
You are making some arguments! I am puzzled by the vagueness and obscurity of the information! Can we not have total clarity?
“Any cost over runs would have to come from reserves says City Manager Kathleen Soltis… However, those figures are based on today’s (2017) preferred interest rates, and the money wouldn’t actually be needed until 2019 when construction would be expected to start.”
If the construction is not going to start during next year – 2018 – why are we having a referendum now? It is premature, in my opinion! I also question why money could be taken from City reserves in case there are over runs! That means taxpayers are on the hook for more, for sure! Isn’t anybody ever going to be tough enough and determined enough to say: This is the budget, we are not kidding! Any over runs will be charged to the contractors! Get that signed first!
Why spend money on design fees if it may fail on referendum?
The overrun will happen when the lowest bid is higher than the estimate.
The next possible overrun opportunity is when the City wants a change during construction.
There are several possibilities for overruns which are beyond the contractor’s control.
“Why spend money on design fees if it may fail on referendum?”
It has certainly never stopped them in the past from having some fairly detailed conceptual drawings for every half baked plan for downtown redevelopment.
You have posted examples of other BC communities building fireballs:) with everything PG is asking for with a price tag 40% less than the $15 million so a conceptual rendering might show the bells and whistles that the additional $6 million will get us—a lesson learned from the RCMP PAClice station.
Why will the City not provide us with a map showing the response times boundaries in 2 minute increments with ALL fireballs in existing locations plus a second one with the proposed location(s)?
Relatively simple with a GIS database.
Firehalls…:-)
Firehalls…:-)
So as the value of our real estate increase, will the rate $8.45/100k go down???? or are they banking on us not seeing thru this.
pretty courageous to say the others will likely not need replacing in another 10 t0 20 years. Pretty sure #2,3and 4 was built in the mid 70’s. So in 2037, they will be hitting the magic age of 60 as well. Just thinking out loud
And they will be crying to replace City Hall about then too !
The 2016 AECOM report on the condition of civic facilities has identified $23 million in required work that needs to be done over the next decade to keep them at an acceptable standard.
Worse still they are $12 million behind in repairs that have been previously identified and should now either be completed or in progress.
Guess there is a better photo op at a ribbon cutting of a new building as opposed to when repairs are completed to ensure the lifespan of an existing building is more than 40 or 50 years.
Somebody at the City obviously did not like that report.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Perhaps if all the halls weren’t outfitted with fancy gym equipment (better than local gym equipment), big screen tv’s and leather recliners…some money could be saved and put towards new building cost? Don’t forget, we’ve already been gouged paying for that “essential” equipment. Nothing but the best for them!
Wonder if fire fighting equipment has changed since 1962? Wonder if the firemans job has changed at all?
The amount of firefighting equipment has increased.. thus all must be stored in special areas to make sure it remains functional.. along with fire suppressing foam and it’s distribution system. Also fire is usually now the first on most scenes..again making the need for more equipment dealing with first aid etc…
55 yrs for a specialty building seems rather decent to me. But that’s just my opinion :)
The Department uses a wide range of categories for different call types are shown in the following table, which shows the Department’s total response in the period from 2009 – 2014.
Within this, a number of event types are showing a much more dramatic increase, some are showing relatively little change, while others are decreasing.
Incident Count
Medical 13,439
Cancelled 7,454
Fire Alarm 2,851
Unspecified 2,434
MVI 1,702
Complaint 937
Structure Fire 625
Admin 548
Open Air Fire 546
Wildland 398
False Alarm 374
Incident not found 275
Smoke Report 274
CO Alarm 238
Vehicle Fire 227
Odour Unknown 212
Gas Leak 156
Hazmat 143
Dumpster 105
Patient Not Found 86
Hydro Lines Down 75
Notification 63
Rescue 61
Transformer/Pole
Fire
30
Flooding 15
Aircraft 11
Bomb 11
BBQ 9
Structure Collapse 8
Explosion 6
Substation Fire 4
911 Hang Up 1
Grand Total 33,318
Medical takes care of 1/3 of the calls.
So, what has happened to ambulances over the decades?
Easy answer.. sever cutbacks to ambulance budgets.
Not that easy.
It is called BC Ambulance.
The other service is the PG Prince George Fire Rescue service.
3 guesses who pays for what.
To make it easy on you, The first 2 do not count.
Unless PG gets a transfer payment from the province, it would be another example of downloading a provincial service to a municipality.
Here is a document from 2 years ago regarding “downloading of ambulance service in the making”
gochetwynd.com/agendas/2015/2015-21-98653212/pages/documents/CI-3.pdf
It includes a graph showing fires rescue per capita expenses for 2011 for cities over 35,000 population.
There were 23 that fit that profile.
West Vancouver was the highest at $300/resident
Chilliwack was the lowest at about $65/per resident
Prince George was the third highest at $200/resident.
Only Delta was about $220/resident.
7 were between $150 and $200
11 were between $100 and $150/resident.
The letter was sent from the Provincial President of Ambulance Paramedics of BC CUPE Local 873, a fight for loss of CUPE jobs.
Of course, the other question that would be important for PG residents, is why is the cost per resident the third highest?
We are about 25% higher than the median cost of the 23.
As one example, The City of Peterborough, Ontario responded to about 1,800 medical calls in 2011.
The population of Peterborough was 81,032 for the 2016 census. So, about 10% larger than PG. Yet PG has around 8 times the frequency of calls responded to by fire rescue.
Why? Because they respond to every call? and are not need what percentage of the time?
One would think that there there would be some better way of approaching this issue of duality of medical calls between the two services.
Or, maybe we should institute a dual system for policing as well if the medical emergency response system works so well.
firefightingincanada.com/fire-ems/fire-and-ems-10391
Comments for this article are closed.