Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled 411 411 OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 4:30 WORKSHOP Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 4 :31 p.m. by Mayor Schaaf . Present : Councilmembers Beaudet, Robert, Swenson, and Turnquist . Staff Present : Interim Administrator Holst, Police Chief Swanson, Public Works Director Benson, City Engineer Anderlik, and Administrative Intern Mesko Arrived late: City Attorney Vierling. I. Department Reports 1 . Police a. Chief Swanson said that the Police Department conducted twelve tobacco compliance checks in December and had only one violator. b. Swanson also said that the first phase of the Safe and Sober program has been completed and there were eight DWI ' s issued. He said that the police have seen a higher alcohol concentration lately, but he does not know the reasons why it has recently increased. There was discussion about the steps that police departments can take to punish offenders . Swanson said that a new law that went into effect January 1 allows for the confiscation of drivers licenses and vehicles under certain circumstances. c. The Chief also reported that the State Patrol has requested Oak Park Heights ' assistance with a one day saturation project during Lumberjack Days this July. The City will be reimbursed for its overtime expenses. Swanson said that he would notify Council of the exact date when he finds out. d. Swanson requested authorization to purchase a new squad car and to connect to the Washington County computer/records system. The items are on the Consent Agenda for approval . He said that the police have been using each car for approximately three years, with 100, 000 miles on the vehicle . Swanson also said that the connection to Washington County' s system will increase the quality and efficiency of the officers. e. Mayor Schaaf had asked Swanson about the status of the Washington County radio system. Swanson said that he understands that the County will wait until 2002 at the earliest to make a decision. This is based on the assumption that information will develop which will make the project more feasible. Swanson recommended that the Council consider planning for this in their upcoming Capital Improvement Budgets . f . Schaaf also asked about the winter parking ban. Swanson said that very few tickets have been issued; the police are warning residents before ticketing them. • OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1998 4:30 WORKSHOP Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 4 :31 p.m. by Mayor Schaaf . Present : Councilmembers Beaudet, Robert, Swenson, and Turnquist . Staff Present : Interim Administrator Holst, Police Chief Swanson, Public Works Director Benson, City Engineer Anderlik, and Administrative Intern Mesko Arrived late : City Attorney Vierling. I. Department Reports 1 . Police a. Chief Swanson said that the Police Department conducted twelve tobacco compliance checks in December and had only one violator. b. Swanson also said that the first phase of the Safe and Sober program has been completed and there were eight DWI ' s issued. He said that the police have seen a higher alcohol concentration lately, but he does not know the reasons why it has recently increased. There was discussion about the steps that police departments can take to punish offenders. Swanson said that a new law that went into effect January 1 allows for the confiscation of drivers licenses and vehicles under certain circumstances. c. The Chief also reported that the State Patrol has requested Oak Park Heights' assistance with a one day saturation project during Lumberjack Days this July. The City will be reimbursed for its overtime expenses. Swanson said that he would notify Council of the exact date when he finds out. d. Swanson requested authorization to purchase a new squad car and to connect to the Washington County computer/records system. The items are on the Consent Agenda for approval . He said that the police have been using each car for approximately three years, with 100, 000 miles on the vehicle. Swanson also said that the connection to Washington County' s system will increase the quality and efficiency of the officers. e. Mayor Schaaf had asked Swanson about the status of the Washington County radio system. Swanson said that he understands that the County will wait until 2002 at the earliest to make a decision. This is based on the assumption that information will develop which will make the project more feasible. Swanson recommended that the Council consider planning for this in their upcoming Capital Improvement Budgets . f. Schaaf also asked about the winter parking ban. Swanson said that very few tickets have been issued; the police are warning residents before ticketing them. SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:01AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-4 94390574;# 2 • • { WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS POLICIES FOR COST PARTICIPATION BETWEEN WASHINGTON COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Adopted September 5, 1995 Washington County Road of CORWIIISSIOINNS SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:01AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-) 94390574;# 3 COST PARTICIPATION POLICY S HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. PURPOSE 1 II. SCOPE 1 III. GENERAL POLICIES 1 IV. DEFINITIONS 1 V. ROADWAYS 2 • VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS 5 • VII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 6 VIII. TURNBACKS 6 1 IX. VARIANCES 7 • SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:02AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-' 94390574;# 4 COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROOTS PURPOSE To establish policies for determining appropriate division of cost participation to be used by Washington County in funding cooperative roadway, traffic signal, and bridge construction projects with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, municipalities, and other agencies. Il. SCOPE The establishment of cost policy is consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 162,17, 373,01, 469,175, 471.59, and Amendments.. III. GENERAL POLICIES • A. A greater degree of County participation is afforded municipalitieshaving a population of less than 5,000 because of the absence of direct State Aid allocations to these municipalities. B. It is recognized that there may be occasional differences between these policies and written participation policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In those cases, participation will be negotiated by the County Engineer. C. When federal aid highway funds are utilized on a County highway project, ' these cost participation policies will be applied to the non-federal share of any specific item of work. In the event federal or state grant funds are made available to a project on a lump sum basis, the County will determine the items for which those funds will be utilized. IV. DEFINITIONS County: Washington County. County Enaineer: The County Engineer of Washington County or designated representative. • Over 5.000: A city of 5,000 population or more. Permanent Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting of metal signal poles with mast arms and underground electrical systems with conduit, cable, and access-hole installations. priority Factor: A number which reflects the sum of the various factors in the • County's Traffic Signal Ranking System. Street Lighting: All components normally installed by a municipality for the purpose of street illumination. 1 • SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ; 11-13-97 ; 9:02AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-) 94390574;# 5 • COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Standard Specifications: Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, latest edition and/or supplement thereto. State Highway: A highway under jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. Temporary Traffic Signal: A traffic control signal system normally consisting of wood poles with signal indications suspended on span wires and overhead electrical systems. Under 5.000: A city under 5,000 population or township. Contract Items: All line item costs in a project bid proposal. Construction Items: All line item costs in a project bid proposal except mobilization, traffic control, field office, and erosion control.measures. Serviceable Condition: The facility has a useful life estimated to be similar to project proposal. Non-Programmed Projects: Any project not identified in the Washington County Capital Improvement Program. Approved System: A bikepath system which has been adopted by a local unit or Washington County. V. ROADWAYS The County's participation in roadway projects will be as follows: (PERCENT OF COUNTY PARTICIPATION) CITIES <5000 CITIES>5000 POPULATION CATEGORY POPULATION AND TWPS. Right-of-way 0 100 Removals 100 100 Mobilization % of participation in % of participation in construction items construction items Traffic Control % of participation in % of participation in construction items construction items Field Office % of participation in % of participation in construction items construction items Erosion Control % of participation in % of participation in Measures construction items construction items Grading 100 100 Two-travel lanes (1)(2) 100 100 2 SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ; 11-13-97 ; 9:03AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-4 94390574;# 6 COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROOTS CITIES <5000 CITIES>5000 POPULATION CATEGORY POPULATION AND TWPS. Additional Travel Lanes 50 0 (2) Parking lanes (2) 50 100 I Shoulders (2) 50 100 Concrete curb & gutter 50 75 (new) Concrete curb & gutter 100 if in serviceable 100 if in serviceable (replacement) condition ^condition Concrete Median (3) 50 75 Storm Sewer (4) % eligible for State Aid % eligible for State Aid 1 Culverts 100 100 Watermain Modification 0 0 l Sanitary Sewer 0 0 Modification Other utilities 0 inside existing R/W 0 (telephone, gas. cable 100 outside R/W TV, electric, pipelines, etc.) (6) i New utilities 0 0 I Traffic signals (5) 100 of county legs 100 of county legs Street lighting 0 0 intersecting Streets 0 - Outside of 0 - Outside of County R/W County R/W Retaining walls (7) 25 25 Sidewalks (new) 0 0 Sidewalks (replacement) 100 if In serviceable 100 if in serviceable condition and required condition and required for for travel lane travel lane construction construction Bituminous 25 if on approved 25 if on approved system Bikepath (new) system and funds are and funds are available available 3 SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:04AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-0 94390574;# 7 COST PARTICIPATION POLICY INOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROQTS • CITIES <5000 CITIES>5000 POPULATION CATEGORY POPULATION AND TWPS. Bituminous Bikepath 100 if in serviceable 100 if in serviceable (replacement) condition and required condition and required for for travel lane travel lane construction construction Bituminous Overlay 100 100 Replacement or 100 100 transplanting trees Replacement Shrubs 0 0 New Landscaping 0 0 Bridges by negotiation by negotiation Turf Restoration 100 100 • Driveway Replacement 100 100 Wetland Mitigation % of participation in % of participation in construction items construction items Preliminary Engineering % of participation in % of participation in contract items contract items Construction % of participation in % of participation in Engineering contract items contract items Non-programmed 0-25, by negotiation 0-25, by negotiation Projects 1. Includes required turnlanes and bypass lanes 2. Costs for gravel base and surfacing used in determining participation 3. Median treatments or landscaping is 0% county participation 4. County Road projects based on contributing flows 5. Traffic signal construction and maintenance is addressed in Item VI. 6. County participation with utility companies is negotiated. Participation shown is for agreements with local units only. 7. Retaining walls constructed in lieu of right-of-way acquisition VI. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS 1 As traffic volumes increase, the County is being faced with an expanding number of intersections where traffic signals are warranted in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Installation of marginally warranted traffic signals reduces the efficiency of moving traffic on the County highway system and consumes construction and maintenance funds more appropriately used on higher priority needs. The County must, therefore, be more selective in terms of which 4 SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:04AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-' 94390574;# 8 • COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS traffic signals are installed and the extent of County participation. The County has developed a Traffic Signal Ranking System which reflects traffic volumes and accident susceptibility and severity. This system will be utilized to determine priorities for new traffic signals (both temporary and permanent). As a general policy, the County will not normally install, or allow to be installed, traffic signals at intersections with a priority factor of less than ten (10). A. CONSTRUCTION • The construction cost of a trafficsignal would include all design and construction engineering, and the total cost of the construction work including, but not limited to, interconnect, lighting, and emergency vehicle pre-emption equipment. The construction cost participation factor for each party will be the ratio of the number of legs of the intersection under each jurisdiction to the total number of legs of the intersection. This participation applies to all new signal systems. B. MAINTENANCE Maintenance for all traffic signals on County Roads and County State Aid Highways, will be furnished by Washington County. The County will own and maintain the control equipment, electrical wiring, including conduit and bases, replace knocked down equipment, and re-lamp, clean, and paint the traffic control system. Traffic signals at intersections with trunk highways will be maintained in accordance with Minnesota Department of Transportation policies. The participating City/Township in which the traffic signal is to be located shall provide for the installation of an adequate electrical power supply to the service equipment or pole including any necessary extension of power lines at no cost to the County. The City/Township shalt maintain the integral street lighting including relamping and cleaning of luminaries. The • City/Township shall pay for electrical energy to operate both the signal system and the integral street lighting. If the traffic signal is located within more than one city/township, the costs shall be apportioned in accordance with the construction cost participation factor. C. FLASHING BEACONS The participation for flashing beacons shall be the same as traffic signals. D. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS The County prefers that permanent traffic signals be installed initially wherever feasible. In the event that permanent traffic signals are not feasible, the following cost participation policies apply for temporary traffic signal installations: The municipality will pay the full cost of a temporary traffic signal and will not receive any credit for those costs when a permanent traffic signal is installed if, at the time the temporary traffic signal is installed, the priority factor is less than ten (10). 5 SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY ;11-13-97 ; 9:05AM ; PUBLIC WORKS-) 94390574;# 9 COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -ZOOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROOTS Temporary traffic signals that are installed prior to programmed reconstruction of an intersection will be participated in on the same basis as permanent traffic signals. The costs for temporary traffic signals installed only for traffic control during construction of a County project shall be paid on the same basis as permanent traffic signals. VII. UTILIZATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING The County's participation in a project where Tax Increment Financing is utilized by a municipality will be as follows: A. PROJECTS NOT IN THE CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM At the time a municipality is requested to approve the preliminary plans for a project, the municipality must identify, by resolution, whether it intends to use Tax Increment Financing for any portion of the project cost. If the municipality elects to use Tax Increment Financing from any Economic Development District for any portion of the project cost, municipal participation could be 100% of the total engineering and construction cost and 100% of the right of way cost for any portion of the project within that municipality. The County Board of Commissioners will review and approve County participation, if any. B. PROJECTS IN THE CURRENT CIP Participation will be as set forth in this policy. • VIII. TURNBACKS Washington County does not have the financial resources to provide improvements on its entire system of local, collector, and Minor Arterial roadways. Local roadways as defined in the County Transportation Plan serve little to no County function and are a low priority for improvement, The County does consider that it has an obligation to insure that a turnback does not constitute an immediate maintenance problem for the local government. Therefore, turnback roads should be in a condition so as to require only normal maintenance work for a five (5) year period following turnback. The philosophies are reflected in the following turnback policy: 1. Bituminous pavements shall be in generally good condition. If they have not been overlaid within the previous ten years or seal coated within the previous four years, they should be overlaid or seal coated prior to turnback. 6 SENT BY:WASHINGTON COUNTY 13-97 ; 9:06AM ; PUBLIC WO -0 94390574;#10 • COST PARTICIPATION POLICY -COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 2. Widening, curve correction, vertical curve correction would normally not be • considered as part of the County's obligation in turn backs. There may be isolated instances where turn lanes and bypass lanes would be considered. These would have to be justified by recent major changes in traffic generation or high accident history. 3. It shall be possible for the local government to receive funds from the County in lieu of any work the County would do to put the road in turnback condition. These funds would reflect the.estimated•cost:of the County work. The local government would have to agree to use the funds on the road being turned back, either for contribution towards more majorwork or for maintenance. 4. The County, in taking over an existing local road would essentially take it over in its current condition, except that: a. If gravel, it should be well graveled. b. If paved, all holes should be patched. c. Isolated drainage problems should be corrected. d. Right-of-way must be provided for future county improvements to the roadway. 5. In regard to bridges or major drainage structures, the obligation should be the same for County and local governments. Prior to turnback, the present "owner" should insure that the structures are in a good state of repair. This would include such things as a sound pavement, tight bolts, railings sound and reasonably painted, and erosion correction. It would not mean strengthening an under-designed structure for current loads or enlarging for inadequate hydraulic capacity. IX. VARIANCES Any variance from this policy must be approved by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. ..Mco.tput\restp.rt.b 7 6-I N W HINGTON CO TY James R.Schug 3 G2'-A\ OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION County Adm GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahl " r 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator 'yob•'soiEss 612-430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612-430-6017 TO: Steering Committee Members: D Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, Cottage Grove .+N 3 I 1997 Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Woodbury John Olinger, City Administrator, Mahtomedi Mike Robertson, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights Ginny Erdahl, Deputy Administrator 'a� ,-47 FROM: Martina Johntz, Program Development Planner CoieeyeAce /, 47 mt97.17- DATE: January 29, 1997 RE: Equipment Sharing Project As you will note from the enclosed items, the public works focus group met again last week to discuss equipment sharing. Participants expressed interest in moving forward with a public works equipment directory to aid in increasing the levels of sharing between communities. Information is currently being collected and the directory is scheduled for completion in March 1997. I have scheduled a meeting to discuss progress on the project and to report on February's public safety meeting. The steering committee meeting is scheduled for. Wednesday, March 5, 1997 1:00 p.m. Administration Conference Room (Room 115) Washington County Government Center If you have any questions before the meeting, I can be reached at 430-6020. cc: Jim Schug, County Administrator Other participating communities: Larry Bodahl, Administrator, Newport Ken Hartung, Administrator, Bayport Nile Kriesel, Coordinator, Stillwater Mary Kueffner, Administrator, Lake Elmo Robert Museus, Administrator, Hugo Chip Robinson, Administrator, Forest Lake Barry Sittlow, Administrator, St. Paul Park "- Ninon on Recycled Pepsi EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION `�~� N WAHINGTON COU TY JamesR. , , OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION CountyAdnunistrator GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahl 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator 612430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612430-6017 To: Public Works Directors, Superintendents and Maintenance Supervisors From: Martina Johntz, Program Development Planner 1A - Date: January 28, 1997 Re: Washington County Public Works Equipment Directory The Washington County public works focus group met on Thursday, January 23 to continue discussion of equipment sharing. Minutes from the meeting are enclosed for your information. At this time we will begin putting information together for a Public Works Equipment Directory that will be made available to each city and township in the county. The directory will be ready for distribution within two months. Enclosed are a number of items requiring your response: 1. Equipment Inventory. Please indicate whether you wish to make any changes or corrections to the original inventory you submitted -- additions or deletions to equipment holdings, equipment which will be available for use by other communities, whether an operator will be required, etc. 2. If the column "Percentage of time item is not in use" is completed on your equipment inventory, please indicate if this reflects the time available on an annual basis or during the season in which the equipment is most likely to be used. (As this information will be most valuable for other communities on a seasonal, rather than annual basis, please update this column if possible.) 3. Public Works Contacts. Use this sheet to indicate public works personnel or city staff authorized to lend /rent equipment to other communities. Ideally, we would like to have two to three contacts per community. 4. Authorization to Release Information. This form must be completed and signed by any employee whose home phone number will be included in the Public Works Equipment Directory. 5. Maintenance Facilities and Equipment. Focus group members discussed the benefits of providing maintenance facilities, equipment and personnel to other communities in emergency or disaster situations. (This may involve allowing access to maintenance facilities, spare parts and tools or providing the services of mechanics.) Please indicate whether you are willing to make your maintenance facilities available for emergency use. Please return these items to me no later than Friday, February 21. This will allow the schedule for production of the Public Works Equipment Directory to remain on track. The above can be faxed to 430-6017 or mailed to me at: Washington County Government Center Office of Administration 14900 61st Street N, PO Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 If you have any questions regarding the enclosed items,I can be reached at 430-6020. cc: Jim Schug, County Administrator Virginia Erdahl, Deputy Administrator City/Township Administrator or Clerk Prind on Pwrydsd Paper EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION tter • • Public Works Equipment Sharing Meeting Minutes January 23, 1997 Present: Keith Arboledah, Randy Bastyr, Ginny Erdahl, Roger Glanzer, Bruce Hanson, Roland W. Harrington, Barry Johnson, Doug R. Johnson, David C. Junker, Mike Kriz, Martina Johntz Equipment Projections As no method for making equipment projections has been identified, a simple extrapolation will be used to project needed road maintenance equipment. Information is being collected from city and township engineers regarding the number of new road miles they expect to be built in the next 20 years. Current use of road maintenance equipment will be used to extrapolate future equipment needs. Equipment Inventory Discussed updates to equipment inventory. Most cities have not yet submitted their updated information (the percentage of time their equipment is available during the season in which it would be used), however most did convey their equipment needs. Communities were asked to indicate the top four or five pieces of equipment they would be interested in renting from another community or purchasing jointly. (Results are attached.) This raised the question of how this list of needed equipment compares to the equipment inventory. Can these needs be met through sharing between communities or are the items needed above and beyond what is currently available? One participant noted that about half the equipment needs could probably be eliminated through sharing of existing equipment. This question will be more easily evaluated once the information on availability of equipment has been updated. Equipment Sharing Participants noted that sharing often occurs between neighboring cities, and is usually on an informal basis. Participants indicated that communities involved in these informal arrange- ments typically do not charge each other for use of equipment. Formal agreements are usually drawn up only in cases where equipment is jointly purchased. The informal sharing that is occurring now seems to work quite well. It is not the intention of this project to cause any changes in current arrangements, but rather to provide information and opportunities for those that may not be involved in equipment sharing now, or who would like to increase their sharing opportunities. Involvement in equipment sharing does not necessitate participation in a formal sharing arrangement but can simply involve providing and receiving information on what equipment is available, at what price, and under what circumstances. 1 gif• • Most of the equipment identified on the equipment needs list is available from the private sector now, however, in an emergency it is sometimes quicker and easier to rent equipment from another community rather than try to rent it. They key is to know what equipment other communities have available and who to contact to get it. Roger Glanzer indicated that Woodbury is interested jointly purchasing two pieces of equipment — a skidsteer and a dump truck. Woodbury needs a dump truck for snowplowing, but has no plans for warm-weather use of this item. For more information, contact Roger Glanzer at 730-5593. Rental Rate Discussed equipment rental rates. Several participants noted that the informal sharing arrangements they are currently involved in do not include charging for use of equipment and that they would like for this to continue. They suggested a system in which current reciprocal arrangements would remain unchanged, while allowing communities to charge for rental to other communities. Discussed uniform rental rates. Participants felt this was not a priority at present. One participant noted that if we wanted to come up with a true rate, it would be just as well to rent the equipment from private contractors because their prices are lower. Furthermore, private contractors will drop off and pick up equipment, and cover damages under their own warranties. Concluded that it would be best for communities with reciprocal agreements to continue as they are currently doing, while allowing each community to set their own rental rates for equipment use by other communities. Dispute Resolution Participants were asked how they would like to see disputes or disagreements handled — through a formal process or informally between the communities involved. Most agreed that in the majority of cases, problems can be worked out between the participants involved. It was suggested, however, that a formal process be established in the event that communities are unable to resolve their differences. Expectations Participants were asked to identify what their expectation are from this project. The following items were offered: • To find out what equipment other communities have and what is available for use • Need to know who to contact--with both on and off-duty phone numbers • To know what maintenance facilities or personnel might be available for use on an emergency basis (including vehicle maintenance facilities; parts; spare tires; tire changing equipment; pneumatic tools; portable welding equipment; portable fuel tanks; hydraulic hose making capability; tow trucks; service vehicles) • To have a directory of equipment, maintenance facilities and contacts 2 ( . . • • Develop a process so that when communities are looking at purchasing a piece of equipment, they can contact other communities and give them the opportunity to share in that purchase. This would involve contacting each other before bidding on equipment. It was suggested that e-mail or fax could be used to contact other communities. Next Steps The following steps will be completed in the next two months: • Collect updated equipment inventories • Compile equipment directory including: (1) equipment each community is willing to share (2) maintenance facilities and equipment available for emergency use (3) contacts, with day and evening phone numbers (inclusion of home phone numbers will require that a release form be signed) • Collect and distribute fax numbers and e-mail addresses 3 , > • • Identified Public Works Equipment Needs (as of January 23, 1997) The items below were identified as top equipment needs by public works personnel in Bayport, Forest Lake, Forest Lake township, Hugo, Lake Elmo, Mahtomedi, Marine on St. Croix, Newport, Oak Park Heights, St. Paul Park, Stillwater, Willernie, Woodbury and Washington County. Each community was asked to indicate the top four or five items they would be interested in either renting from or jointly purchasing with other communities. The column to the right indicates the number of responses to each item. Air compressor(125 CFM) 1 Asphalt curbing machine 1 Blacktop paver, self-propelled 1 Blacktop paver(small) 1 Brush chipper 3 Brush cutter 1 Cold storage building for seasonal equipment 1 Conveyor/screener for salt sand 1 Culvert steamer 2 Generator, portable (100 KW) 3 Leaf vac 1 Loader (any kind) 1 Loader, skidsteer 2 Loader, tractor (1/2 cu. yd.) 1 Milling machine (used to grind off blacktop) 1 Mower, flail 1 Roller, asphalt (2-3 ton) 1 Roller, rubber tire 1 Salt storage shed with sedimentation pond 1 Sewer jotter or vector 3 Stacker and screen 1 Street sweeper, vacuum type 1 Tractor, crawler(D-4 Cat bulldozer) 2 Tractor/ loader(medium size 4x4) with attachments (side mower, rear mower, open sweeper, hydro turn back blade, snow bucket) . 1 Trailer, low boy 1 Tree spade 2 Truck, boom (bucket) 2 Truck, dump with snow plowing equipment 1 Vacuum sweeper for parks 1 Water pump, portable (6-8") with its own engine 1 4 • Oak Park Heights Equipment Number Willing Emergency(E); Operator to Percentage Other Other re- type owned to share Scheduled(S);or accompany time item is equipmnt quirements Both uses(B) equipment not in use info (to use) Air compressor,portable 1 Y E N Chainsaw 1 Y E Y Mower -Tractor mower 2 N Plow 1 N Road barricades/horses 8 N Sedan 1 N Snowblower -Hand 3 N Sprayer 1 Y S N Tiller 1 Y S Y Truck,dump -1 and l'/ton 1 N Truck,pick up 1 N 4 Meow indie IiiF age reflects:" ❑ Availability annually 0 Availability during season of use . Public Works Contacts Please complete the information below if you wish your community to be included in the Public Works Equipment Directory. Day and evening phone numbers are requested for each person authorized to lend / rent equipment to other communities. An Authorization to Release Information form (attached) must be completed by each person whose home phone number will be listed in the directory. Any charge for use of equipment or personnel will be left to the discretion of each community. Community Contact person #1 Name Position title Work phone Home phone (see attached release form) Contact person #2 Name Position title Work phone Home phone (see attached release form) Contact person #3 Name Position title Work phone Home phone (see attached release form) Alternate after-hours phone number Can your department be contacted via fax or e-mail? Fax number E-mail address 1 • • 110 Maintenance Facilities and Equipment Public works focus group members discussed the benefits of providing maintenance facilities, equipment and personnel to other communities in emergency or disaster situations. This may involve allowing access to maintenance facilities, spare parts and tools or providing the services of mechanics. Any charge for use of facilities, equipment or personnel will be left to the discretion of each community. Community In an emergency situation, would you be willing to make your maintenance facilities available to other communities? 0 Yes 0 No Please indicate which of the following items you could provide: ❑ Vehicle maintenance facility ❑ Mechanics ❑ Tire changing equipment ❑ Spare tires ❑ Spare parts ❑ Pneumatic tools ❑ Hydraulic hose making equipment ❑ Portable welding equipment ❑ Portable fuel tanks ❑ Service vehicles ❑ Tow trucks ❑ Other Contact person (If different from contacts listed on page 1) Name Position title Work phone Home phone (see attached release form) 2 • • Authorization to Release Information I, authorize inclusion of my home phone number in (Name of individual authorizing release) the Public Works Equipment Directory for Washington County Communities for the purpose of providing after-hours authorization for use of `s (Name of City or Township) public works equipment. Please Print Name: Position title: City/Township: Home/after-hours phone number: I understand that my records are protected under state and/or federal privacy laws and cannot be disclosed without my written consent unless otherwise provided for by state or federal law. I also understand that I may revoke this consent any time except to the extent that action has been taken in reliance on it and that this consent will expire automatically upon termination of my current employment or as described below, whichever is earlier. Specification of the date or condition on which this consent expires Executed this day of , 19 (Signature of individual authorizing release) (Signature of witness) 411 110 Enclosure B MEMO Date : September 12, 1996 To: Mayor & Council From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Re: Equipment Sharing Study Meeting As Council will recall I have been working with other City and County administrators in Washington County to establish an equipment sharing plan. This goal of this plan would be to create increased sharing of equipment, either on a regular and emergency basis. As part of this study I met with the Public Works directors of Stillwater, Newport, Woodbury, St . Paul Park, Cottage Grove, Hugo, and Mahtomedi; representatives from Washington County Public Works department, the Washington County Deputy Administrator, and the Cottage Grove City Administrator. An intern for Washington had collected a list of everyone ' s equipment, and we discussed what equipment we would want to share or possibly jointly purchase. There are already several informal equipment sharing agreements going on between adjoining cities such as Newport and St . Paul Park or Woodbury and Cottage Grove. The next step is to develop a specific list of what equipment each community is willing to share and under what conditions it is willing to share it . We will also be developing a list of equipment that communities are interested in purchasing together with other communities. Finally a joint powers agreement to cover all of this will be developed. • R • • Public Works Equipment Sharing Meeting Minutes September 4, 1996 Present: Keith Arboledah, Roger Coomer, Ginny Erdahl, Lee Flandrich, Kevin Frazell, Roger Glanzer, Bruce Hanson, Doug R. Johnson, David C. Junker, Mike Kriz, Jack Perkovich, Michael Robertson, Martina Johntz Ginny Erdahl opened the meeting by welcoming the group and providing background information on the equipment sharing study. She noted that the goal of the project is to reduce costs to individual cities in covering expenses for the types of equipment that are expensive and infrequently used. The group sponsoring the study has no preconceived notion as to the outcome of the study. Kevin Frazell noted that due to a severe windstorm in Cottage Grove in 1993, emergency generators were brought in to run lift stations and pump stations. Although the generators were available from neighboring cities, Cottage Grove was unable to hook them up for a number of hours until electricians adapted them to the stations. This led to the consideration that these types of problems could be avoided in the future if the equipment of each of the cities within Washington County were compatible. Furthermore, the sharing of other types of equipment was considered. This would mean looking at Washington County as one large municipality, rather than as many separate entities. To share equipment in this manner however, a number of provisions would need to be worked out ahead of time, such as priority for use of equipment, who operates equipment, who pays for maintenance, etc. The equipment sharing study will examine these issues before an agreement is entered into. Introductions Bruce Hanson (Newport): Newport already co-owns a few pieces of equipment and share a number of items. This works well. One of the bigger problems on a larger scale sharing program will be figuring out how to schedule use. If there is a major storm like the storm of 1993, a number of us will need generators. Roger Glanzer (Woodbury): Woodbury shares equipment with several cities and the county. Do not currently co-own anything, but they are interested in doing so for certain pieces of equipment. Belongs to a public works mutual aid association. Concerns are the use of equipment and whether it is feasible to share a piece of equipment with another city that may need it as often. Roger Coomer (Washington County): The County is the largest owner of equipment in the county and has contracts with nine cities and townships, and other counties. The County has both specialized and non-specialized equipment. Periodically they do have equipment needs for items such as jetters and storm sewer cleaners. These are borrowed from cities. Concerns are: where the equipment will be stored, who will be in charge of maintaining an inventory, and how priority will be determined. CE SEP 171996 1 � � • • • • • Jack Perkovich (Washington County): Thinks that for this type of program to succeed it needs to focus on the types of equipment that are only needed once or twice a year. Ideally, some type of equipment inventory should be available (see page three for more details). One hope is that one of the things that could be accomplished through this would be for a consensus of equipment rates to emerge. Would not want to see this program preclude the sharing that already exists. It all comes around eventually and everybody benefits. Lee Flandrich (St. Paul Park): St. Paul Park has been sharing equipment for about 20 years. Costs for equipment co-owned with Newport are split 50/50 for purchase and major repairs. On the smaller repairs, each just does it themselves. Thinks sharing is a good concept, but has concerns when a program gets much larger than arrangements involving only a few cities. Other concerns include: maintenance, major repairs, minor repairs, who does it, who pays for it, responsibility for breakdowns, where is equipment stored, how are costs split (percentage; per capita?) . If the agreement is not spelled out right, this can cause some problems. David C. Junker (Stillwater): Stillwater does some vactoring for Oak Park Heights. Thinks sharing programs would be more relevant to police and fire department because they have such high cost equipment. Stillwater has three road graders available for sharing because they have so few gravel roads left anymore that need to be maintained. Mike Robertson (Oak Park Heights & Bayport): Oak Park Heights is currently contracting with Bayport and Stillwater, and have fairly limited stocks of equipment. Oak Park Heights is more likely to be interested in borrowing rather than loaning out equipment. Keith Arboledah (Mahtomedi): Mahtomedi is looking for different ways to do cost sharing of equipment and personnel. Currently have cooperative agreements with other cities in which Mahtomedi provides services at established rates. Interested in sharing generators and a salt storage shed with another city. Mike Kriz (Hugo): Hugo currently has a very small public works department, but it will be growing. They do not have much equipment to share, and are interested in sharing generators. Need to expand their public works department, and are willing to share or buy equipment with other communities. Models Kevin Frazell pointed out that several models are possibilities for the equipment sharing organization including: cataloguing and indexing equipment currently owned throughout the county; deciding collectively what equipment needs to be owned collectively and creating a joint powers organization that would finance and own the equipment; and for Washington County to own and maintain the equipment and each municipality pay a fee to be a member. Equipment Participants did not indicate any additional equipment needs to be added to the items submitted on the equipment sharing survey (distributed prior to the meeting). There were also no concerns about the ability to share any particular types of equipment included on the list or concerns regarding compatibility of the equipment. 2 • • Participants discussed the differences in sharing equipment on an emergency basis compared to non-emergency, routine needs. The willingness to share may differ depending on which type of situation the item is needed for. Roger Coomer noted the County's role as a provider of equipment in emergency situations. He indicated there is considerable availability if cities make their wishes known to his department. It was suggested that an inventory of equipment owned by the county, cities and townships should be taken and distributed to all municipalities in booklet form. Equipment holdings should be organized by municipality (so that cities can check what the communities nearest them have available) and alphabetically by type of equipment (so a particular item can be easily located in an emergency situation). Equipment rental rates should be agreed upon and included in the booklet, as well as a definition of what constitutes an "emergency". It was recognized that the final decision as to whether and what kind of equipment would be made available to other communities, would probably have to be authorized by each city's City Council. Thus, the wording of this question on the equipment survey will have to be written very carefully. The distinction must be made between asking what a community thinks it may be able to share, as opposed to what it is willing to share (an implied commitment). Cities' equipment listings should include additional information regarding use of each piece of equipment. For instance, next to each piece of equipment would be indicated whether it would be available in emergency situations, for routine tasks, or both; whether an operator would need to accompany the equipment; and any other requirements that would have to be observed. The result of having such a booklet would mean that cities could start communicating about their equipment needs. It would save time in locating equipment by cutting down on the number of phone calls necessary. A city would have access to which cities own the piece of equipment they need, and would not waste time calling cities that do not own the equipment (or that are not willing to loan it out). Participation in such a program should not mean that a city would have to give up a piece of equipment during a time that they need it. The question was raised as to whether it would hurt an agency to indicate on the inventory the percentage of time that each piece of equipment is available for other communities to use. This would be another guide to cities in need of equipment as to which cities they may be able to borrow equipment from. The flip-side of this matter is what policy-makers may think or how they may react if they see that some equipment is being used only a small portion of the time. Some public works departments may be unwilling to share this information. Another section that was suggested for the booklet would identify what type of equipment each city is interested in purchasing in order to facilitate cities working together toward purchase of the item. In addition, it may help some cities to get rid of surplus items by supplying these to other communities. 3 • Ginny Erdahl commented that there appears to be a need for cities to meet regularly to discuss such items. This would give communities the opportunity to work together or exchange equipment when they know they have projects coming up. This need to meet was affirmed by a comment that some of the discussion in the meeting (concerning particularly types of equipment) had been very beneficial. The discussion referred to concerned the pros and cons of owning versus contracting for certain public works equipment. Further information exchanges of this type would probably be beneficial in the future. Participants asked that the group meet again after the equipment survey has been completed. This meeting will be scheduled within the next two months. Prioritization of needs Participants were asked to prioritize equipment needs they had identified in the equipment sharing survey distributed prior to the meeting. Participants indicated they were unwilling to complete this exercise until after the equipment survey has been completed. Other issues A number of additional issues were raised. One participant noted that a sharing agreement will have to get everybody involved, spell out all the issues, such as insurance, maintenance, storage, etc. "It will probably be pretty complicated, taking a couple of months to get everyone to sign off, even if everyone was in favor of it." The establishment of equipment rates was discussed,including the need to allow for costs to be recovered. If rental rates aren't high enough to cover costs, cities will not make their equipment available for other communities to use. A uniform rate will also help ensure that equipment use will be spread more evenly across communities and that everyone will be treated equally. It was suggested that the County public works department could come forward with equipment rates, as they have equipment costs pretty well established. One of the county representatives offered to put the rates out there as a start, at least for those that are known. Ginny Erdahl noted that where different issues might be encountered is if joint purchases of equipment are considered in the future. These will raise additional questions. It is a matter of getting to that point though and working through what the issues are. The cities of Roseville and Coon Rapids have an agreement to share seal coating equipment that has been in place for approximately 20 years. The agreement covers priority for equipment use, how it is used, maintenance, cost allocation, etc. Goals The following goals were expressed: • Complete equipment inventory of County, cities and townships • Meet again in approximately 2 months 4 • Y • • Public Safety/ Emergency Services Equipment Sharing Meeting Minutes September 5, 1996 Present Dennis Cusick, Dave Daily, Ronald J. Ehnstrom, Ginny Erdahl, Jim Frank, Stuart Glaser, Ken Hartung, Bill Sullivan, Jim Wisner, Martina Johntz Ginny Erdahl opened the meeting by welcoming the group and providing background information on the equipment sharing study. She noted that the goal of the project is to reduce costs to individual cities in covering expenses for the types of equipment that are expensive and infrequently used. The group sponsoring the study has no preconceived notion as to the outcome of the study. Current equipment sharing /mutual aid participation Police and fire departments are currently participating in mutual aid organizations. Several participants commented that any needed piece of equipment a department does not own is available in emergency situations through the mutual aid agreements. A participant noted that law enforcement and fire departments share equipment and resources pretty routinely, and wondered how much time and effort we would want to put into a sharing study concerning emergency services. Equipment lists are available for police equipment through the Multi-agency Investigative Team (MATT) and for fire equipment through Capital City Mutual Aid, so the task of collecting this information does not need to be repeated. It was suggested however, that it might be valuable to have a list of Washington County fire equipment. The Capital City listing may be a good place to start and could be supplemented with information from departments that are not included in this agreement. Mutual aid agreements affect considerations for equipment purchases. For instance, one participant noted "if someone else in our mutual aid group has a piece of equipment, there's no reason in the world for me to buy one because they have it? Fire service equipment downsizing was discussed, and St. Louis used as an example. Fire departments are starting to take a look at where they're heading and how to downsize. If one department buys one piece of equipment and another buys something else, then they can cost share. Participants did not have concerns regarding mutual aid sharing. Equipment is readily shared when needed for an emergency and usually provided with an operator. Most police equipment is small and inexpensive and not suitable to sharing agreements. In addition, these items are often needed on short notice, making it important for each department to own each independently. 1 • • Departments also share equipment in non-emergency situations, but in these cases the equipment may not be as readily available. An example is in the use of mobile radar trailers. If the trailer is being used by the department that owns it, it will not be immediately available to other departments for non-emergency uses. Routine uses of equipment were distinguished from emergency situations in which the equipment would be available immediately. Equipment Kevin Frazell explained that when the equipment sharing study was first discussed, the focus was on public works. However because cities need to more systematically consider how equipment is procured, this led to the inclusion of public safety and emergency services in the study. When sharing is considered as a way of obtaining equipment, then issues such as who owns equipment, how it's maintained, where it's stored, and how it's made available must also be considered. Police Equipment Two types of police equipment were discussed: mobile radar trailer and polygraph equipment. There were concerns regarding the ability to share a mobile radar trailer because of the need to use it in response to complaints. Unlike equipment needed in an emergency situation, a radar trailer would not be loaned to another department unless the agency owning the trailer was not using it. None of the participants indicated an interest in sharing polygraph equipment due to the infrequency of use, training costs involved and liability issues. Several noted that contracting for this service is a cheaper alternative to purchasing the equipment and training personnel. Fire Equipment Kevin Frazell asked whether there is a possibility for sharing the expensive pieces of fire equipment (such as aerial ladder and pumper trucks) beyond mutual aid. The following responses were offered: • Any of the primary pieces of equipment (engine and aerial trucks) would be difficult to share. These items have to be on the scene first and are pretty hard to take out of the community. Other equipment might be able to be fairly shared. • There is always a possibility for sharing. The thing that would concern me the most is if you spread them out too thin, what would happen to an individual city's insurance? If sharing does not bring the ISO insurance rate down significantly, certainly there's always the possibility of sharing. • Tanker trucks should be kept within a limited size range because they are likely to be taken out on gravel roads. Use of multi-purpose trucks was discussed as a cost effective option for cities. Trucks are smaller and more maneuverable and can be outfitted with various types of equipment. This eliminates the problem of limiting firefighters to specific usages off a specific truck. 2 • • Compatibility of equipment was discussed in regards to generators, hoses and other equipment. See Equipment Standards on page 5 for details. Concerns A number of concerns were voiced regarding the sharing of equipment,including the following: • In public safety you're in a whole different dynamic than you are in public works. Fire departments work on their ISO ratings and they need to have certain equipment available within so many minutes and so much water to maintain that rating. So it's not like they can say I'll give you this ladder truck and we'll set it up here in Oakdale and send it away from Cottage Grove, we can't do that. And the dynamic too is that we don't need this stuff until it's an emergency. In public works you might be able to schedule the use of equipment, thus having the ability to share the cost and the insurance. But for public safety it's a very different situation. • A problem with talking about equipment sharing is that it's difficult even to get all the agencies together in the same room to discuss the issue. Prioritization of needs Participants were asked to prioritize equipment needs they had identified in the equipment sharing survey distributed prior to the meeting. These items were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with a rank of 1 indicating the item of highest priority. The four items included in the table below were ranked as needs by two or more participants. By far the greatest response was for a training facility for police and fire departments. Nine responses indicated this was a priority, two-thirds of which ranked it as the number one priority. The average of these rankings is 1.7. Equipment standards was designated as a priority for three respondents, with an average rank of 2.3. Computer modeling for hazardous materials planning and a mobile radar trailer were included by two respondents and averaged 2.5 and 4.0 respectively. Results of equipment prioritization worksheet Number of Avg. rank Eauiament or facility responses assianed Training facility for police and/or fire 9 1.7 Equipment standards for generators, fire and police equipment 3 2.3 Computer modeling for hazardous materials planning 2 2.5 Mobile radar trailer 2 4.0 Each of the other items on the list were ranked by only one respondent, and include the following: potable water trailer; satellite fire station to cover distant locations in May township, Grant and Hugo; SCBA testing equipment; hose trailer (1,000 + feet of 4" 3 • • hose); county emergency operations center; cellular phones; hand-held radio equipment; and polygraph /psychological stress evaluator. A final item that was not included on the priority list, but which was discussed at great length and determined to be an important issue is an improved county-wide public warning and notification system. See discussion beginning on page 5 for details. Training facility Discussed the need for a police firearms physical training facility. This type of facility is more than just a "target range" (the suggestion made in the equipment sharing survey). Officer training is important for liability reasons. Use of force is one of the three largest areas in which police and sheriff's departments are sued and lose large sums of money. One participant stated, "It's something we're everyday having to make modifications to or changes in and I think it's always the next court case away from a problem." Currently the training of police officers is being done individually by each of the ten police agencies. Individual departments must provide upgrades to ranges and employ their own instructors. It was suggested that a wise use of taxpayers money would be to combine resources toward the development of a new training facility. This would be beneficial not only to reduce duplication of training efforts, but for liability reasons as well. A county-wide facility was suggested, based on examples such as Maple Grove. This facility is open 24 hours a day, is inside and well built (it can be used year-round; noise from firearms training is contained) and liability of errant rounds is eliminated. Justification for the development of such a facility could be the cost and resources currently going into many separate training programs and facilities throughout the county. A survey of these expenditures would be helpful. In addition, the tightening of standards and closing of ranges currently being done by OSHA (due to the presence of lead contaminants in the ground, problems with errant rounds, etc.) may mean that current facilities within Washington County have a limited life span. Better training of officers was also offered as a cost savings. Dollars invested in training (particularly standardization of training) was suggested as the best defense against potential lawsuits. "It's just a matter of time before Washington County faces an officer involved in a shooting." A couty-wide training facility could see additional cost savings in bulk ammunition purchases and a reduction in the number of instructors employed. The need for a county fire service training facility was also discussed and led to the suggestion that a single combined training facility could serve police, fire and SWAT- team training needs. Such a facility would further reduce cost to taxpayers by providing certain parts of a facility that could be used by all departments. Some examples of areas that could be shared include buildings, entry, facility management, classrooms,shower rooms, parking, and tower. In addition, cross training involving both police and fire personnel was cited as a benefit to such a facility. 4 • • It was suggested that a county-wide training facility should be run on its own as a business. It might employ 1 or 2 instructors and have a board of directors to oversee its operations. With law enforcement and fire service use this facility could generate enough activity that it would be used all the time. If Washington County police and fire departments did not require use of the facility full-time, it could be rented to agencies in bordering counties. Participants agreed that such a facility would be cost effective and could operate at a savings compared to current operations. It was suggested that there is enough land now that is currently owned by the entities or tax forfeited that a reasonable location for the combined training facility could be found. Identifying and securing a parcel of land for this purpose now will make this task easier. Residential growth in Washington County may make this a more difficult task at a later date, particularly if it encounters a NIMBY response from potential neighbors. The cost of a combined training facility to service all police and fire departments within the county was discussed. It was suggested that the county bond for the facility and each city reimburse the county for a portion, based on the number of police and fire personnel each employs, hours of use, or some other factor. Equipment Standards Kevin Frazell commented that one item that clearly crosses both public works and public safety areas is emergency generators. These are one of the items that prompted the equipment sharing effort. The thought was not only that an inventory of emergency generators would be helpful, but also that standardization throughout the county would allow generators to be transported anywhere in the county and readily hooked up. (This was not the case in 1993 when electricians spent hours wiring generators into lift stations because they were incompatible.) Ron Ehnstrom noted that the fire service has been battling the problem of incompatible generators for well over 20 years. Furthermore, the same problem applies to other fire fighting equipment such as hose and fire hydrant connectors. Police have also faced some of the same issues regarding various equipment. It was suggested that determining a standard for each piece of equipment for departments to work towards would be a good first step in solving these problems. Department could work towards county-wide uniformity as they replace their equipment over the coming years. This might mean that 20 years from now the issue would be resolved, rather than going through the same cycle and discussions again. Public Warning Notification system Although an improved public warning notification system was not included in the priority list, it is something that was determined as a siginificant need and which will require lots of cooperation. The Emergency Alert System goes on line in January of 1997. Cooperation is needed regarding issues such as: how the system will be activated, what messages will go out, and what kind of equipment should be purchased. 5 • • A county-wide approach should be taken for placement of warning sirens. Knowing when and where neighboring cities are siting sirens will help create a better network. In addition, cost savings could be realized by purchasing several sirens together. Goals The following goals were articulated regarding the items discussed: • Consideration of a combined county-wide police, fire and SWAT-team training facility. Examination of the Maple Grove and Ramsey County facility plans to gain more information. Organization of a committee to look into the issue. • Development of equipment standards for generators, fire and police equipment. • Survey of current public warning siren locations, and plans for the future. • Development of a Washington County resource directory to list equipment holdings of police and fire departments. • Continued cooperation between police and fire departments. Further discussion about the sharing process will help improve all county public safety departments. • • 6 • • Item 3c: Public works equipment that is needed but not currently available from Washington County municipalities. Are these appropriate for joint purchasing? Asphalt curbing machine Asphalt reclaimer Conveyors and screeners for recycling salt sand Crack filler Lawn sweeper, riding Machine used to reclaim gravel from ditches Mulcher Prairie seeder Ram hoe Screener to recycle seal coat material Sewer televising equipment Skidsteer Street sweeper Stripper, airal lifts Stump grinder Truck: semi end dump Truck: vector trailer/truck Tub grinders Vacuums Vaccuum sweeper for parks ANG WAHINGTON COU TY James R.Schug OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION County Administrator GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahl ,4 PEsy 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator � ' 612-430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612-430-6017 TO: Public Works Directors, Commissioners, Supervisors and Fleet Managers City Administrators and City Clerks FROM: v r7 Martina Johntz, Program Development Planner uw , ` . 4d L 1 1 DATE: August 30, 1996 14 SEP - 31996 RE: Equipment Sharing Meeting for Public Works -'.\ Thanks to all who returned the Equipment Sharing Questionnaire. I have enclosed a summary of the survey results, as well as the discussion questions for Wednesday's meeting. Please bring these items with you on Wednesday. I have recently been informed that our meeting room has been changed because of the courts remodeling in the Government Center. Due to the anticipated heavy court's calendar for the rest of the year, the fourth floor H.E.L.M. Training Room has been converted to a courtroom. The Equipment Sharing meeting for Public Works will still take place at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 4, however our location will be: County Attorney Conference Room, Third Floor Washington County Government Center Hope to see you all there! cc: Jim Schug, County Administrator Virginia Erdahl, Deputy Administrator Pada!on Recycled Papa EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION t 1110 • Equipment Sharing Meeting for Public Works Wednesday, September 4, 1996 Washington Co. Government Center, County Attorney Conference Room Purpose: -- To determine equipment or facility needs that are not being met -- To determine the types of equipment that make sense to be shared -- To discuss pros and cons of equipment sharing — To identify other issues that need to be addressed 1. Opening comments (Virginia Erdahl) 2. Introductions a. What is your general reaction to sharing equipment? b. What do you see as barriers to participating in an equipment sharing program? 3. Discussion of equipment needs a. Are there any additional items which could be added to the list of equipment needed? b. What concerns do you have regarding the ability to share specific pieces of equipment included on this list? c. Some items under equipment needed are not included on the "equipment available" list. Would these items be good candidates for joint purchasing?Why or why not? d. How would you prioritize items on the "equipment needed" list? (Which are most important to your municipality?) 4. Discussion of benefits and concerns a. What benefits do you see to participating in an equipment sharing program? b. What concerns do you have to making your equipment available for other municipalities to use? c. What concerns do you have to participating in a joint purchasing agreement? d. How do you think these problems might be handled? 5. Other issues that should be considered? 6. Next steps • Summary of Pubic Works Equipment Sharing Survey August 29, 1996 Survey responses were received from sixteen public works departments including nine cities, five townships and Washington County. The results of these surveys are summarized below. For the purposes of this summary, the term "city" shall be used to refer to both cities and townships. Question 1: What equipment or services are currently being provided to or received from other municipalities? Are these exchanges being made under formal or informal sharing agreements? Cities and townships in Washington County are currently sharing equipment and personnel on a limited basis. All survey respondents indicated that their city was either providing equipment and personnel to or receiving it from other cities. Many of the smaller municipalities are contracting out all public works duties, while medium and larger sized cities are either contracting for limited services or borrowing/renting only certain pieces of equipment. These arrangements are being made under both formal and informal sharing or service agreements. While all respondents indicated their city is currently participating in equipment sharing agreements, the reported agreements occurred only between adjoining municipalities. For instance, equipment sharing takes place between the neighboring cities of Newport and St. Paul Park, Forest Lake and Forest Lake Township, and Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. According to the survey results, nonadjoining cities and townships do not appear to share equipment and personnel, even though equipment needs and availability suggest this would be beneficial. Surveys indicated the following equipment and services are currently being shared: • Air compressor • Rubber tire roller • Asphalt roller and trailer • Salt sand (through MN APWA) • Boom truck • Sewer cleaning, sewer jetting • Chipper • Snowplow and ice removal • Crack filler • Steamer • Defusers and gauges • Sm roller SL,vpep Or • Dust control Tr ctor • Flail mower •. Training (through MN APWA) • Road maintenance Transit/level • Roadside week cutting • Tiller In addition, joint purchases have been made for several pieces of equipment including an air compressor, asphalt roller and trailer, boom truck and two wood chippers. 1 • • i Question 2: What equipment is needed by your municipality? Why has the equipment not been purchased? Five respondents indicated they do not currently have any equipment needs. One commented that they generally have the equipment needed to do their work, however "the difficulty is finding adequate funding to replace current equipment." One city indicated a need for"everything", while a township simply stated that "lots of equipment"was needed. This township does not anticipate having the opportunity to purchase any equipment because of its inability to raise taxes. This is due to the large number of residents on fixed incomes within its borders. In addition, a number of specific equipment needs were noted. These are listed in alphabetical order below and include the number of surveys specifying each item. Items needed: Reason not purchased: • Asphalt curbing machine (1) Cost • Asphalt reclaimer (1) Cost • Crack sealer for asphalt roads (1) Will probably be buying one. • Dozer, small (2) Cost; Can rent it or hire a contractor • Emergency generators (3)* Cost; Awaiting CIP • Jetter/vac (2) Cost • Machine used to reclaim gravel from ditches (1) Cost • Ram hoe (1) Cost • Rodder (1) Can rent it or hire a contractor • Salt storage shed (1) • Screener to recycle seal coat material (1) Cost • Sewer televising equipment (1) Cost • Snow blowers (1) Can rent it or hire a contractor • Stacker and screen (1) Can rent it or hire a contractor • Steamer (1) Rent one when needed • Sweeper (1) Can rent it or hire a contractor • Tree spade (1) Cost • Trucks: Maintenance/ utility (1) Awaiting CIP Semi end dump (1) Cost Vactor trailer/truck (1) Awaiting CIP 5-yard pick-up (1) Cost 1-ton pick-up (2)** Cost • Tub grinder (1) Cost • Vacuum sweeper for parks (1) Cost • Two cities indicated a need for emergency generators; one city reported a need for two generators. ** One city indicated a need for two 1-ton pick-ups 2 ' I • • Question 3: What equipment is needed only periodically that you would be willing to share? Many of the same items specified in the previous list were included in response to this question. One city indicated it was unsure what equipment it would be willing to share; two cities were unwilling to share any equipment. The following specific types of equipment were identified: ) • Asphalt curbing machine (1) • Road graders c3ci C-s 0"'`�e`^/ • Asphalt reclaimer (1) • Salt storage shed (1) • Crack filler (1) • Screener to recycle seal coat • Chipper (1) material (1) • Conveyors and screenersfor • Sewer televising equipment (1) recycling salt sand (1) Skidsteer (1) • Dozer, small (1) • Stripper, airal lifts (1) • Emergency generators (4) • Stump grinder (1) • Jetter/sewer vac with jetter (4) • Tractor (1) • • Lawn sweeper, riding (1) • Tree spade (1) • Machine used to reclaim gravel • Truck: vactor trailer/truck (1) from ditches (1) • Truck: semi end dump (1) • Mulcher (1) • Tub grinder (1) • Ram hoe (1) • Vacuums (1) • Prairie seeder (1) • Vacuum sweeper for parks (1) Question 5: How are you currently completing tasks that require this equipment? Are you satisfied with these arrangements? Nine respondents answered this question. Their replies include the following: • Tasks are completed by Washington County and private contractors. Very satisfied with this arrangement. • Presently we rent some equipment. This comes at a very high cost and usually dictates when and how we can start a project. Many projects are put on hold until we can finance them. There are no alternatives to renting at this time. • Not doing the task, using other equipment that may not be as efficient, renting equipment, or contracting. • Borrow equipment from neighbors in emergencies, but still have needs that are unmet (for routine tasks). • Using some equipment that's too old and should be updated. • Contract services with a private company. Satisfied with this arrangement. • Contract services • Not a problem • Not satisfied with current arrangements 3 • S . . Question 6: What equipment does your community have that you would be willing to share with other communities? Would there be any restrictions on its use? Five respondents indicated their municipality does not own any equipment and thus they are unable to share. Two cities indicated they were unwilling to share their equipment with others. From those that indicated a willingness to share with others cities, the following stipulations were noted: an operator would need to accompany the equipment; an agency wishing to use the equipment would be required to show their operators were trained and competent to use the equipment; and costs including maintenance and repairs would need to be shared. One noted that use of their equipment would be on a limited basis, either in the off-season or during emergency situations. Another indicated that their city already does share its equipment and that most of the time this is not a problem. Cities listed the items below as ones they would be willing to share with others: • Asphalt saw • Road graders • Backhoe/tractor • Salt storage shed • Bucket truck Sewer rodder • Chipper (brush and limbs) • Snow blower, loader mounted • Chipper and chipper truck • Snow groomer • Curbing machine • Tractor conveyor spreader • D4C dozer • Tractor and lowboy • Emergency generators (4) Tow truck • Jetter (2) • Tree spade • Pontoon boat • Vac trailer • Portable steamer • Water pump Question 7: What benefits or concerns do you see to participating in an equipment sharing agreement? Most respondents noted two benefits to participating in equipment sharing agreements: cost savings and access to equipment that would otherwise not be available or affordable. Cost savings were mentioned specifically in regards to costly items which are infrequently used. In addition, one respondent indicated that storage of each of these pieces of equipment would be a problem. Many of the concerns mentioned by respondents also noted costs. These concerns include the ways in which equipment purchase, maintenance and repair costs would be shared (how these are allocated between cities of different sizes), whether maintenance costs of a city's own equipment will increase when other cities are using it, rental costs in general, and whether rental rates will be less than that of private contractors. Concerns regarding equipment included the following: getting equipment back in poor condition; having access to equipment 24 hours a day; training for use of equipment; quality of equipment purchased; and determining usage of equipment (priority for use). 4 • MEMO Date: July 26, 1996 To: Mayor & Council From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Re: Equipment Sharing Study Meeting I meet with the Steering Committee of the Equipment Sharing Study on Wednesday, July 24 . In attendance were Washington County Deputy Administrator Virginia Erdahl, County Intern Martina Johntz, Cottage Grove City Administrator Kevin Frazell, Bayport City Administrator Ken Hartung, and myself . If you will recall, this study came out of the Washington County Administrator' s meetings. The study is intended to; 1) Provide an inventory of all equipment owned by individual cities so as to provide a source for contacts in the event of an emergency. 2) Set the groundwork for a possible joint powers or similar agreement to share ownership, maintenance, etc. , of equipment . I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of the initial meeting of this committee which was held in May. I did not attend that meeting because I was on vacation. At this point the intern has gathered information on a variety of similar agreements nationwide. The steering committee discussed the issues raised by these agreements. The committee decided the next step is to set up meetings, one with public works directors and one with police chiefs and emergency managers, to gather information on equipment and possibilities of sharing. The committee recommended these meetings occur after Labor Day due to the likelihood that a lot of people would be on vacation before then. The committee felt that administrators should be invited to the meetings as well, due to the possibility that some public works directors might not be supportive of sharing equipment . Those people invited to these meetings will be given a list of information to bring to the meetings with them. The steering committee will meet again in September and discuss the next step. • • Equipment Sharing Study: Preliminary Research Findings July 18, 1996 Fifteen sharing agreements from various locations in Iowa and Minnesota were reviewed and are summarized below. These agreements were examined for information that may be relevant to communities within Washington County as they consider combining resources to acquire needed yet infrequently used equipment. Few of the sharing agreements reviewed were of the same size and scope of the project that is being considered in Washington County, thus not all options included below will be directly applicable to or usable by Washington County communities. These examples have been included however, because they may offer possibilities in modified form or inspire further consideration in a particular direction. The following information is detailed below: sharing agreements reviewed, including participants and type of agreement; structure or oversight mechanisms; equipment ownership; equipment use, requests for use and priority; responsibility for equipment maintenance, repair and replacement; equipment storage; personnel issues; cost allocation methods; insurance coverage; protocol for membership changes; duration of agreements; and mechanisms for resolution of complaints or disagreements. The information included below is preliminary in the sense that it has been obtained from legal documentation of sharing agreements or grant applications. The next step in this process is to conduct interviews with participants of these agreements to follow up and expand on the information obtained so far. Questions that may be asked in the follow-up interviews include the following: • What has worked particularly well with your sharing agreement? • What has not worked well? • In hindsight, what would you change about your current sharing agreement? • Do you foresee having the opportunity to make these changes in the future? • How is priority for equipment/personnel determined under normal circumstances? • How is priority determined in emergency situations? • Are municipalities involved in the agreement of approximately the same size? • How do municipalities share costs for maintenance, repair and replacement of equipment? • Does this work well? Would you change it if you could? How? • Who is liable in the event of a breakdown of equipment? • Is insurance covering equipment and personnel included in agreement? How are costs shared? • How is the agreement administered? How are costs for administration shared? • If agreement involved building a facility, how were costs shared? • Is a formal procedure for dispute resolution included in the agreement? Explain. • Has this procedure been used? Was it successful? Were all parties satisfied with the outcome? • • Sharing agreements reviewed: • Asbury, Epworth and Farley, IA --joint purchase and ownership of wood chipper • Benton County, IA Fire Insurance Group -- collective purchase of fire department insurance (participants include two towns and six fire departments) • Clayton County, IA, City of McGregor, and McGregor Municipal Utilities --joint financing, building and maintenance of a vehicle maintenance and storage building • City of Dows, IA and various towns and townships in Franklin & Wright Counties -- ambulance service provided by Dows to surrounding areas • Eldora and New Providence, IA -- equipment and personnel provided by Eldora for water and utility work in New Providence • Iowa City, IA and Iowa City Community School District -- School District provided access to City's fueling and vehicle washing facility • Metropolitan Radio System Planning Committee (includes Metropolitan council, Metro area counties, Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Police, Sheriffs, EMS and Fire personnel) -- establishment of a network infrastructure for a region-wide digital trunked 800 MHZ channel system • Olmsted County, MN, City of Rochester and Rochester Public Utilities -- consultant- prepared study assessing centralized fleet management and inventory control • City of Princeton and Scott County, IA--joint use of radio facilities (Sheriffs communication system), to be located on a water tower owned by City • Regional Mutual Aid Association (includes 44 Metro area cities, one county and one township) -- RMAA members lend equipment and personnel to other members for use in emergency situations • STRIDE (includes Cities of Lost Nation, Olin, Oxford Junction, Wheatland and Wyoming, IA) -- sharing of commonly and non-commonly owned public works equipment and personnel • STRIDE --joint purchase and use of safety equipment • Urbandale and Johnston, IA-- lending street sweeper and operator • VECTOR (includes Cities of Alton, Hartley, Paullina, Primghar, Sanborn and Sibley, IA) -- sharing non-commonly owned equipment, facilities and personnel for municipal electric utilities; jointly contracting for services; and jointly purchasing or leasing equipment • Western Area City/County Cooperative (includes Counties of Becker, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Stevens, Traverse, and Wilkin and Cities of Barnesville, Battle Lake, Breckenridge, Detroit Lakes, Fergus Falls, Glyndon, Hancock, Hawley, Henning, Moorhead, Morris, New York Mills, Pelican Rapids, Perham, Rothsay, and Wheaton, MN) -- exchange and sharing of equipment, expertise, staff development materials and cooperative purchasing (most of the information I received is in regards to joint training of law enforcement officers) Structure / oversight of the organization: Purpose: decision-making regarding purchase or sale of equipment, cost allocation among members, admission of new members, change in terms or scope of the agreement, etc. • No formal structure (this is most common in agreements between small numbers of cities or counties) 2 R T • • • Joint powers: a decision-making body consisting of one (or more) representative(s) from each member--decisions made by a majority, two-thirds or unanimous vote. A coordinator may be elected for administrative tasks. (This system used by RMAA) • Joint powers: a Board of Directors consisting of one representative from each member city or county, Executive Committee and two staff members (WACCO) • Public corporation: a Board is created with policy-making authority and is intended to function as an "independent unit of local government." A Technical Advisory Committee is comprised of a wide range of the system-user entities and will provide strong input to the board on system implementation, protocol and operations. (Metropolitan Radio System Planning Committee.) • Special district: recommended by the original Metropolitan Radio System task force because the emphasis on professional and technical skills would be beneficial in financing and operating a complex system, however this recommendation was not supported by the legislature because of several concerns including lack of accountability. • Consolidated department: create a new department that will be an autonomous division of City, County and Utility structure and placed solely in charge of fleet operations. A Users' Committee will establish the framework under which the new department will work, interview and select the Manager, and other tasks. A mid- level supervisory ad-hoc committee will work to improve communications and discuss how consolidation might be done more effectively. (Olmsted County, Rochester, Rochester Public Utilities) Ownership of equipment: • Owned individually • Owned jointly -- equal shares or unspecified • Owned jointly -- percentage of ownership based on prorated amount paid for purchase and maintenance Equipment use. requests for use and priority: Jointly owned equipment: • Equipment must be reserved at least 45 days in advance of the date it is to be used. A rotation cycle is used to determine priority for use of the equipment. In the event that an emergency strikes more than one city at a particular time, the same rotation cycle will be used to determine priority. Priority placement will change annually. (Asbury, Epworth, Farley) • "The Board shall establish priorities or protocols for use of the system." (Metropolitan Radio System Planning Committee) • No priority established -- departments consolidated (Olmsted Co., Rochester, RPU) • The use of safety equipment will be scheduled as agreed upon by the mayors (STRIDE) Individually owned equipment: • An official in each city is designated as the person to request or respond to requests for equipment. Priority is on a first come-first serve basis, but a city can recall assistance if it deems this to be in its own best interest. (RMAA) 3 r j • • • Equipment and operators will be made available for use when the city owning the equipment does not need it (Eldora, New Providence) • Requests for public works equipment (and responses to requests) made by mayor or public works staff with mayoral approval (STRIDE) • Ambulance service may be requested at the agreed upon rates by anyone living within the participation areas. Rates for people living outside this area are at the discretion of the ambulance service (Dows IA) • Equipment lists are updated annually (RMAA) Responsibility for equipment maintenance. repair and replacement: Jointly owned equipment: • Each city maintains and cleans the wood chipper after each use and returns the gas tank to full. One city changes the oil and filter, another does preventive maintenance. (Asbury, Epworth, Farley) • Any city incurring any costs of purchasing, leasing or maintaining the equipment will be reimbursed through the operating and maintenance fund (STRIDE) • Daily maintenance or inspection services performed by drivers or operators; scheduled services performed by maintenance mechanics, drivers or operators (consolidated facility). (Olmsted County, Rochester, RPU) Individually owned equipment: • Each city/county maintains its own equipment. • Equipment damaged by borrowing city is the responsibility of the borrower. • Equipment damage due to normal wear and tear is the responsibility of the owner. • Equipment damaged by city/county personnel when both equipment and operator are lent to another city/county is the responsibility of the owner. • Equipment inspected after emergency operation to determine if any equipment damage was directly related to that operation. If mutually agreed that repairs are required, they are the responsibility of the borrower. (RMAA) • Mn/DOT will own, operate, and maintain those elements identified by the radio board as the first phase (the backbone system). (Metropolitan Radio System) Equipment storage: • Most agreements did not address this issue • In the Asbury, Epworth, Farley agreement, between the months of April and October the wood chipper is stored by the last city to use it. From November through March it is stored by either Asbury or Farley. • Storage provided for a fee by a participating city (STRIDE) Cost allocation: Jointly owned equipment • All expenses allocated 40%, 40%, 20% (Clayton County, City of McGregor, McGregor Public Utilities) • Allocation for initial purchase of equipment based on assessment of property value per section or per acre. • Initial purchase and first year operating costs based upon a per capita assessment 4 • • and range from $2,357 to $3,648 (STRIDE) • Divide purchase cost equally. At the end of each fiscal year, routine expenses and repairs are prorated according to each city's usage as determined by the hour meter. Each city will keep records of expenses and submit copies of bills for audit purposes. During non-emergency periods, repairs and/or expenses in the amount of$200+ are to be discussed and approved by each of the cities prior to incurring the repairs and/or expenses. This provision does not apply during emergency periods. (Asbury, Epworth, Farley) • A method of cost sharing suggested by John Martin, professor in the Dept of Gov- ernmental Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, allocates costs based on a distinction between fixed and variable costs in maintaining equipment and uses a different basis for allocating each type of cost. Fixed costs are allocated on the basis of assessed property value within participating communities. Variable costs are allocated on the basis of equipment use averaged over the past five years. Information related to property values and equipment usage is updated annually to ensure the following year's costs will be shared in a fair and equitable manner. • Establish a charge-back system for funding operating costs and vehicle/equipment replacement. Develop rates on the basis of a long-term fleet replacement plan which identifies operating costs and future replacement dates and costs for every unit in the fleet. Design rates to recover ongoing maintenance costs and the pro- jected net replacement cost of each unit over the anticipated service life of the unit. Charges paid by fleet users on a monthly basis out of appropriations earmarked for this purpose. (Olmsted County, Rochester, City of Rochester Public Utilities) Individually owned equipment • Rates for each employee, service and piece of equipment specified in the agreement. Rates updated annually. (Eldora and New Providence; Iowa City and Iowa City School District; Urbandale and Johnston) • Rates for equipment rental will be according to each city's file listing of equipment and rental rates (STRIDE) • All normal costs of equipment ownership and maintenance paid by owner city/county. Borrower city/county provides routine fueling and servicing costs during the period equipment is being borrowed. (RMAA) • Metropolitan Radio System backbone structure paid for with funds from Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Transit service, Metropolitan Airports Commission and 9-1-1 fee. Metropolitan Radio Board has the authority to set and collect user fees from participating agencies to defray system and radio board operating costs. In addition, the board may establish and impose user fees on entities using the first phase system to cover the board's costs of implementing the plan and the costs of operating the first phase system in the metropolitan area. (The board will determine how capital, operating, and administrative costs of the first phase system will be spread across users of the region wide system.) Operating and mainte- nance costs for the system are expected to be fairly minimal and will also be paid by users through the imposition of a fee for service on all users when the system is operational. Local units will pay for enhancements using local fund sources. 5 • • • Metropolitan Radio System Planning Committee requires new participants to pay only the incremental costs associated with enhancing the system in its area. Administration/coordination of agreement; equipment storage (Jointly owned equipment) • Annual fee (flat rate) to be paid by each participant to the city providing administra- tive services and storage of equipment. Fee to be adjusted annually, as needed. • Annual flat rate of$200 paid for storage, insurance and administration costs. A $500 fee will be paid annually for operating costs for the next four years. (STRIDE) Administration/coordination and storage (Individually owned equipment) • Coordinator services provided for a fee of$10 per year by each participant (RMAA) • Flat fee paid by each participant for administration and storage (STRIDE) • Per capita based fee paid for the first year capital and operating costs of program. Flat rate paid in subsequent years. Insurance: Jointly owned equipment • Divide insurance cost equally or in the same proportions that equipment costs allocated • Equipment insurance should name each city as co-owner and co-insured so that payment can be made in the appropriate proportion in the event a piece of equipment is a total loss. (Asbury, Epworth, Farley) • In the event that a claim is filed, the city responsible for the claim will also be responsible for paying the deductible. The exception is in the case of natural disaster, when all cities will share the cost of the deductible. (Asbury, Epworth, Farley) • "The board may obtain suitable, proper, and adequate public liability and workers' compensation insurance and other insurance as it deems necessary, including but not limited to, insurance against the liability of the board or its officers and employees for personal injury or death and property damage or destruction, with the force and effect stated in chapter 466, and against risks of damage to or destruction of any of its facilities, equipment, or other property." (Metropolitan Radio System Planning Commission) Individually owned equipment • All equipment must be insured by the city or county (RMAA) • Each City will be responsible for carrying liability insurance for its use of the equipment. The city borrowing equipment agrees that all borrowed public works staff will be considered employees of the borrowing city and will be covered by the borrowing city's workers compensation and liability insurance. (STRIDE) • Each City will provide a letter of confirmation of coverage from their respective insurance agencies (STRIDE) 6 • • Personnel issues: • Sharing agreements often required trained personnel to accompany individually owned specialized equipment -- salary paid on an hourly basis by borrowing city/county • This was not an issue in any of the agreements dealing with jointly owned equipment • Each city is responsible for the compensation of its own staff, regardless of the location of work performed (STRIDE) • Administrative personnel needed for billing, equipment requests, etc. -- can be handled on a rotating basis or with staff employed by the organization • Administrative tasks to be performed by the city clerk approved by a majority of mayors. A fee will be paid to the city providing administrative services. (STRIDE) Membership changes (additions. withdrawals): • Typically 30 to 90 days advance written notice is required to withdraw from sharing agreements • Some agreements require approval of the Board for new additions • Sharing agreements that involve joint ownership of equipment require additional time for additions/withdrawals in order for legal and financial obligations to be satisfied Duration of agreement: • Until equipment is discarded • Specified short-term time period (many are renewable on a yearly basis to allow for adjustment of equipment and labor costs) • Specified longer-term time period (10 or 20 years) • Perpetual (or until parties decide agreement is no longer beneficial) • A number of agreements lock parties in for a 3 to 5 year period (particularly when equipment is jointly purchased) Resolution of complaints/disagreements: • Governing /oversight body resolves issues • Small committee created to resolve issues • All member communities given a vote 7 • WASHINGTON COUNTY Workplan for Equipment Sharing Study July 22, 1996 This workplan lays out the issues that will be addressed and the process that will be used to develop a plan for the sharing of major equipment and facilities in Washington County. It is intended to be used to gain agreement from the participants on what will be accomplished during the process and as a guide to the steps which will be taken to complete the study. Definition Sharing agreements are a way in which municipalities can gain access to expensive, specialized and infrequently used equipment and facilities, at lower costs than would be required for each municipality to individually own each facility or type of equipment. Equipment and facilities that may be included in this study include: aerial ladder trucks; emergency equipment; emergency generators; large backhoes; paving machines; records storage space; tree spades; a law enforcement shooting range; radio towers; voice mail service; computer maintenance; Internet server; scanner; utility equipment (distribution of natural gas); and bulk purchasing of salt, sand and gasoline. Purpose The objective of the study will be to determine the issues which need to be addressed in a sharing agreement, anticipate possible problems in its implementation and recommend equitable ways in which to share both equipment and costs. Specific issues which should be addressed include: 1. Determining the types of equipment and facilities to be included in the sharing agreement. 2. Determining standards of the need for equipment and facilities -- i.e. how many aerial ladder trucks are needed within a certain geographic area or for a particular population base? 3. Inventorying equipment and facilities already owned by Washington County and/or member municipalities, and determining whether additional units are needed. 4. Determining ways in which equipment and facilities can be made available throughout the County, both as needed for ongoing operations and in response to emergencies. 5. Determining how equipment should be maintained and where it should be stored. 6. Devising a plan of future acquisitions — i.e. what facilities and equipment will be needed and how they should be acquired and replaced. 7. Developing an equitable cost sharing arrangement and model agreement. 8. Developing a procedure to address complaints or problems. N • • Process Steps Research 1. Preliminary research -- Collect general information and examples from sharing programs 2. Follow-up research -- Conduct interviews with cities currently involved in sharing programs (July-August) 3. Prepare document summarizing above information Purpose: To determine options for purchase and maintenance of equipment, cost allocation, scheduling and use of equipment and facilities, etc. To determine what has (and has not) worked well in other communities, and ways in which to improve upon those examples. rly5e, F Consult with working and user groups (August} 1. Meet with working groups (consisting of department heads and/or managers from Public Works, Public Safety and Emergency Services departments) 2. Meet with user group (consisting of representatives of participating municipalities) Purpose: To discuss equipment sharing programs with groups that would be affected by implementation of such an agreement. To collect input on the manner in which the Washington County program could or should be set up. To gather information regarding unmet equipment needs, current arrangements for the sharing of equipment and services, and preferences for cost allocation, oversight and administration, etc. Gather information (September-November) 1. Equipment holdings a. Inventory equipment currently owned by cities and county b. Inventory specially trained personnel employed by cities and county 2. Equipment and personnel needs a. Determine unmet equipment needs (types of equipment) b. Determine standards for identifying quantity of equipment needed c. Determine need for specially trained personnel 3. Data gathering a. Gather data for standards (current population, population projections, etc.) b. Determine current and future county-wide equipment needs (type and quantity) c. Determine ideal storage locations (using GIS analysis, if possible) d. Determine available storage facilities 4. Analysis of issues (incorporating research, interviews with city officials and suggestions from user group) and development of recommendations for: a. Cost allocation b. Billing schedule - 2 - • • c. Insurance coverage d. Liability for damage to equipment e. Governance / oversight f. Administration g. Equipment use, priority, etc. h. Equipment maintenance I. Personnel issues j. Procedure to address complaints or problems k. Changes to membership I. Duration of agreement Preparation of Report 1. Write report (December) 2. Present to Steering Committee for comment (January) 3. Make revisions as necessary and distribute (January) - 3 - �• • • Equipment Sharing Study: Issues needing consideration (Updated July 22, 1996) Items to be included in the agreement: • Equipment currently held by municipalities • Joint purchase of needed equipment not currently owned by municipalities Allocation of costs for commonly owned items, including: • Purchase of equipment • Maintenance of equipment • Repair of equipment • Fuel • Storage facilities • Insurance • Specially trained personnel • Administrative items - personnel, supplies, etc. Cost allocation options: • Flat charge • Fee prorated by population • Fee prorated by property value • Fee prorated by equipment usage • Fee prorated separately for fixed and variable costs • Fee prorated using another factor or combination of factors Future changes to cost allocation method: • When needed • Reevaluation at specific times (yearly, for example) Cost issues relating to equipment owned by municipalities: • Equipment repairs and maintenance • Charges for equipment use • Charges for specially trained personnel • Liability for damage to equipment Governance/oversight options: • Joint powers • Public corporation • Special district Administration of agreement: • By a separate entity/department • By one of the participating communities O • Billing options: • Monthly • Quarterly • Yearly • "When payable" (after collection of taxes, assessments, revenues) Equipment • Type of equipment needed • Relevant criteria for determining quantity needed • Ideal storage locations based on population and need • Current storage options Equipment ownership: • Owned jointly -- equal shares • Owned jointly -- percentage of ownership based on prorated amount paid • Owned individually Use of equipment: • During normal circumstances: How is priority determined? Procedure for reserving equipment? Procedure for recording equipment reservation requests? • During emergency circumstances: How is priority determined? Does this change if equipment had been reserved for that time period? Insurance: • Allocation of cost • Payment of deductible and reimbursement for claims • Type of coverage and in what amounts Changes to membership: • Procedure for adding members • Procedure for terminating members Duration of agreement: • Specified time period (short or long-term) • Perpetual • Procedure for terminating agreement Disagreements regarding the agreement: • Procedure for handling problems and complaints • • Equipment Sharing Study: Discussion Questions for Public Works, Public Safety and Emergency Services August , 1996 Purpose: -- To determine where the sharing of equipment and services is currently taking place -- To determine what equipment needs are not being met -- To determine issues that need further investigation 1. What equipment or services are currently being provided to or received from other municipalities? Are these exchanges being made under formal or informal agreements? Describe the agreement. 2. What equipment is needed by your municipality? Why has the equipment not been purchased? 3. How often would you use this equipment? Would these uses be primarily for scheduled activities or in response to emergency situations? Do you anticipate use of the equipment during a particular season, time of day, etc? 4. How are you currently completing tasks that require this equipment? Are you satisfied with these arrangements? 5. What equipment does your community have that you would be willing to share with other communities? Would there be any restrictions on its use? 6. What benefits or concerns do you see to participating in an equipment sharing agreement? If you would like to make additional comments after today's meeting, please contact Martina Johntz at 430-6020. y GT..... o" _\ WA INGTON COU Y James R.Schug OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION County Administrator GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahl 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator 4"k rsosisy? 612430 6000 Facsimile Machine 612 430-6017 TO: Steering Committee Members: Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, Cottage Grove Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Woodbury John Olinger, City Administrator, Mahtomedi MikrfiebertScn, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights Virginia Erdahl, Deputy Administrator FROM: Martina Johntz, Assistant Program Development Planner DATE: July 16, 1996 RE: Equipment Sharing Project I have scheduled a meeting to discuss progress on the equipment sharing study and determine the next steps to be completed. Agenda items tentatively include the following: (1) updates to the workplan; (2) research findings and direction for further investigation; (3) scheduling and content of meetings with public works and emergency services personnel; and (4) next steps. The meeting is scheduled as follows: Shared Equipment Project Steering Committee Meeting Wednesday, July 24, 1996 2:00 p.m. Administration Conference Room, Room 115 Washington County Government Center cc: Other participating jurisdictions: D Larry Bodahi, Administrator, Newport JUL I T 1996 Ken Hartung, Administrator, Bayport Nile Kriesel, Coordinator, Stillwater Mary Kueffner, Administrator, Lake Elmo Robert Museus, Administrator, Hugo Chip Robinson, Administrator, Forest Lake Barry Sittlow, Administrator, St. Paul Park P1ntsd on Recycled Riper EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION t •Air • • Equipment Sharing Study: JJL 2 6 1966 Steering Committee Meeting Summary May 23, 1996 Present: Virginia Erdahl, Kevin Frazell, Barry Johnson, Martina Johntz, John Olinger, Jim Schug Discussed the Draft Equipment Sharing Workplan. Suggestions for additional items to be considered for joint purchase or contracting included: radio/communication towers; scanner; computer maintenance; voice mail; salt, sand and gasoline; Internet server; and bulk purchase of natural gas for resale to residents. The City of Oakdale is the only large city that chose not to participate in the Equipment Sharing study. Regardless of this, Oakdale should be included in all considerations for the study and invited to all meetings because of its population size. Townships and small towns should not be included unless they specifically expressed interest. Many arguments will be presented for why not to implement a sharing project, including the possibility that equipment may be needed by many communities at the same time. Should be prepared for these. Operational issues need to be addressed, including: personnel (especially in regards to specialized equipment); maintenance of equipment; liability in the case of equipment breakdowns; and fee schedules. Meet with working groups (public works, public safety, emergency services) before beginning the collection of county-specific data. Include steering committee members in these meetings. • Steering Committee will determine when and if the project will progress to creating a draft sharing agreement and what will be included in it. Suggested information sources inlcude: • Regional Mutual Aid Association • ICMA • • Mutual Aid Agreements for firefighting (but these are different because the equipment is not mutually owned) • Lowell Johnson in HELM (to help contact emergency services personnel) • Woodbury Public Works director • Next meeting will take place in approximately 8 weeks. Revise workplan, be prepared with some research information and begin thinking about meetings with Public Works, Public Safety and Emergency Services. ,�jGTON COG WA -IINGTON COUP4'Y James R.Schug 3 :„retfrA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION County Administrator GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahl 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator \ `�M.efooY/ 612-430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612-430-6017 ' © CE. a `” TO: Steering Committee Members Kevin Frazell, City Administrator, Cottage Grove MAY - 2 1956 Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Woodbury 1L� John Olinger, City Administrator, Mahtomedi Jam;- eon, City A+ n..., pOak Park Virginia Erdahl, Deputy Administrator FROM: Jim Schug, County Administrator DATE: May 1, 1996 RE: Equipment Sharing Project After a couple of delays, we have now hired a special project planner who will be working with Washington County on our upcoming strategic planning process and will also be allocating a part of her time to the cost equipment sharing project that has been approved by 11 Washington County cities and the County. The person whom we have hired is Martina Johntz who has a Masters degree in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Iowa. I would like to propose a meeting of the Project Steering Committee as follows: Shared Equipments Project Steering Committee Meeting Thursday, May 23, 1996 2:00 p.m. Administration Conference Room, Room 115 Washington County Government Center The purpose of the meeting will be to meet Martina, review with her the expectations for the project, and establish some time lines for the process and the final report. Please R.S.V.P. to Linda Engh at 430-6000. /le cc: Other participating jurisdictions: Ken Hartung, Administrator, Bayport Chip Robinson, Administrator, Forest Lake Robert Museus, Administrator, Hugo Mary Kueffner, Administrator, Lake Elmo Larry Bodahl, Administrator, Newport Barry Sittlow, Administrator, St. Paul Park Nile Kriesel, Coordinator, Stillwater Primed e"Recycled Pepe EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ���� 411 • Enclosure A MEMO Date : March 21, 1996 To: Mayor & Council From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Re : Washington County Administrator' s Meeting We met Wednesday, March 20 at the Government Center and discussed the following items. equipment Sharing Study - The County is in the process of hiring a person who will do the equipment sharing study. Since no townships were interested in study the steering committee which will direct this study will consist of a representative from County, the School District, two cities over 10, 000, and two cities under 10, 000 . Since we had raised the original objection to less representation of smaller cities, I volunteered to be one of the representatives for the cities under 10, 000 . The City Administrator of Cottage Grove volunteered to be one of the representatives for the over 10, 000 communities. The other positions were not yet filled. Washington County Local Government League - The initial meeting of this league has been established for April 30, the time has not yet been set . We should be receiving a mailing soon. Though the letter was sent just to the Mayors, all local government officials are invited to attend. County Court Remodeling & Addition - The County is in the process of adding to and remodeling its court building. I have enclosed a newsletter about this that the County will be publishing on a weekly basis . County Administrator Jim Schug said that approximately half the cost of the project is the mechanical systems. Page 5 - Minutes 01/00116 ' County Wide Equipment Sharing Study - Robertson reported on a proposal the City received for participation in a study on the feasibility of sharing the purchase of major equipment by local governments . The proposal requests funding to hire an intern at a rate of $10 . 00 per hour to both inventory the current equipment of Washington County governments and to determine what those governments unmet equipment needs are and how that equipment could be shared. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Kern, moved to join the venture with the stipulation that cities have equal representation on the steering committee regardless of size. Carried 5-0 . Establish a Public Hearing Date - Transfer of Liquor License - Club Tara Inc. to Club Tara Supper Club, Inc. - Councilmember Kern, seconded by Swenson, moved to establish a Public Hearing Date of February 12, 1996 . Carried 5-0 . Consent Agenda Process - Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved to direct City Administrator Robertson to prepare a Consent Agenda as part of every regular meeting agenda. Carried 5-0 . The Consent Agenda will be the last item on the 6 :30 agenda. 1996 Council Meeting Dates - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Kern, moved to approve the 1996 dates for Council meetings as presented Robertson. Carried 5-0 . HRA Board Meeting - Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Kern, moved to adjourn to the HRA Board meeting. Carried 5-0 . Mayor O'Neal opened the meeting for business . Hearing no business, Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved that the City Council be appointed officers of the HRA Board and to adjourn the HRA Board meeting to the City Council meeting. Carried 5-0 . February Newsletter - Robertson presented a list of proposed articles for the February newsletter. Council requested the following articles be added to the list : An article on the increase in sewer and water rates, Family Violence Network information, and the proposed boat access . Middle St . Croix Joint Powers Agreement - Mayor O'Neal presented the Joint Powers Agreement . Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved to adopt Resolution 96-01-03 , A Resolution Approving the Middle St . Croix Joint Powers Agreement . Carried 5-0 . Perro Creek Study - Mayor O'Neal reported that the Middle St . Croix Watershed Management Organization is in the process of initiating a study to estimate the cost of establishing a pump outlet on Perro Pond. I- g-% 411/ CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS „4„ A MINNESOTA STAR CITY December 19, 1995 Jim Schug, County Administrator Washington County Courthouse 14900 61st Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re : Participation in Project for Sharing of Equipment Dear Jim: I have received your letter on the above subject and have passed it on to my Council . Unfortunately we will not be able to take action on it within your deadline . My Council meets on the 2nd and fourth Mondays of the month. The fourth Monday falling on Christmas this year, the Council opted not to have a second meeting in December. Its only meeting in December was December 11, and your letter arrived on December 12 . I have placed this item on the agenda for our first meeting in January, which will be Monday, January 8 . I will contact you with the result of Council action after that meeting. If you have any questions please give me a call . Sincerely, ‘1;‘1 Michael Robertson City Administrator cc : Kevin Frazell, Cottage Grove City Administrator CoNY 14168 North 57th Street • Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082-2007 Phone: 612-439-4439 • Fax: 612-439-0574 - - • 41110 Enc 1 Qs ur_e _.1.6.---- MEMORANDUM ;;1 DEC 121995 j `i TO: Administrators of Washington County and Its Cities and Townships FROM: Jim Schug, Washington County Administrator Kevin D. Frazell, Cottage Grove City Administrator DATE: November 30, 1995 SUBJECT: PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT FOR SHARING OF MAJOR EQUIPMENT INTRODUCTION One of the major impacts on all of our budgets is the cost of acquiring and maintaining those exceptionally expensive, specialized and infrequently used pieces of equipment -- i.e. emergency generators, aerial ladder trucks, large backhoes, tree spades, paving machines. We are asking for your active participation and small financial contribution in helping put together a plan of how Washington County and its municipalities can cooperate to reduce such expenditures for all of us. DISCUSSION Washington County is made up of 34 separate municipalities -- larger cities, smaller cities, and townships. There is certainly no reason why each one of us needs to individually own every piece of expensive equipment that could conceivably be needed to meet any and all needs or. emergency! In the spirit of inter-governmental cooperation, we are proposing that all of us band together to come up with a more cost effective way for meeting such needs. Good intentions to cooperate always seem to break down in the face of day-to-day realities of who needs what, when, and where! The answer, we believe, is to have a well thought out plan for the cooperative sharing of equipment. To this end, we are specifically proposing that a Public Administration Intern be hired to work on a six to nine month project to produce such a plan. Some of the specific activities and hoped- -for outcomes would include: • • (1) Determining standards of the need for such equipment -- i.e. how many aerial ladder trucks are needed within a certain geographic area or for a particular population base. (2) Convening working groups made up of department heads and/or managers from our Public Safety and Public Works Departments to agree upon plans for how such pieces of equipment can be made available throughout the County, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. (3) Inventorying the availability of such equipment already owned by Washington County and/or member municipalities. (4) Consulting with the user groups to devise operational plans for how that equipment can be made available, both as needed for ongoing operations and in response to emergencies. (5) Devising a plan of future acquisitions -- i.e. what pieces of equipment will be needed, how should they be acquired, and where they should be stored. (6) Developing in the plan an equitable cost sharing arrangement. For example, the intern's final report might determine that based on population and geographic proximity,Washington County and its collective municipalities need access to five 250 KW portable emergency generators. These should be stored at Public Works facilities in Forest Lake, May Township, Stillwater, Lake Elmo, and Cottage Grove. The generators will be available to Public Works and Public Safety personnel throughout the County, who will have explicit instructions on how to access and transport the equipment as needed. The plan would include recommendations to each municipality of how to insure that their wells, lift stations, and/or public buildings are wired with receptacles that can be connected to the standardized generators. A cost- sharing arrangement, both for acquisition and maintenance of the equipment, would be included as part of the plan. BUDGET The maximum budget for carrying out this project is: Intern salary -- 1,560 hours at $10 $15,600 Payroll benefits at 12 percent 1 .872 Personnel Subtotal $17,472 Miscellaneous Expenses 2.528 Total $20,000 • S With the expectation that not everyone will choose to participate, we are asking for contributions as follows to raise the necessary funds for this project: Washington County $ 3,000 Cities over 10,000 1,750 Cities and Townships 2,000 - 10,000 750 Cities and Townships Under 2,000 350 Excess funds left over at the end of the project will be returned to the County and participating cities in the same proportion as their original contributions. SUPERVISION The project will be carried out under the oversight of a five person steering committee made up of a representative of Washington County, two representatives of cities with a population of over 10,000, one from a city under 10,000, and one from a township. Ongoing reports will also be provided to Administrators and Clerks throughout Washington County at their quarterly meetings, with opportunities for input. The intern will work under the direct day-to-day supervision of the Washington County Administrator's Office. TIMELINE We would request that you present this proposal to your Mayor and City Council so that they can consider and act on their participation prior to the end of the year. We would hope to have an intern on board and ready to work by February or March, with the project to be completed by the end of 1996. ACTION REQUIRED We request that you present this proposal to your Mayor and City Council for their consideration. The financial participation by your local government would be per the chart provided above. A letter of intent to participate should be sent to: Jim Schug, County Administrator FAX: 430-6017 Washington County Telephone: 430-6002 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 by December 29, 1995, or as soon as possible.