June 15, 2011

CALL TO ORDER 7:00 pm

ROLL CALL

x Mr. Anderson x Mr. Brotzman x Chief Lutz
x Mr. Bartlett x Mr. Takacs x Mr. Long
- Mr. Britton x Mr. Wayman x Mr. Szeman

MINUTES:

MINUTES of: 05/18/11 Regular Session
Motion by: Mr. Bartlett, Seconded by: Mr. Anderson to approve.

ROLL CALL: 5 Ayes, 1 abstain

BILLS AND PAYROLL:

Bills ($59,596.21) and payroll ($138,710.28) totaling $198,306.49 are motioned for acceptance and payment.

Motion to approve as presented by: Mr. Britton, Seconded by: Mr. Wayman
ROLL CALL: All ayes

OPENING PUBLIC PORTION:

No Comments.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

OLD BUILDINGS: Nothing to report.

Mr. Britton inquired whether the flag pole at Station #3 had been removed and put into storage. Chief Lutz replied that it had not yet been done. Britton then reported that the flag pole is no longer there. Mr. Wayman committed to checking with the Township to see if they removed it.

Mr. Brotzman reported that the Township Fiscal Officer advised that the roof at Station #3 requires approximately $7,000 in repairs. Brotzman asked the board to consider assisting them with the cost. Mr. Britton reminded everyone that the District has not used the building for 3 years and that the Fire Board decided 2 years ago not to put any more money into the building.

FULL TIME LABOR MANAGEMENT: Nothing to report.

PART TIME LABOR MANAGEMENT: Nothing to report.

Mr. Bartlett suggested, and the board agreed, that the “New Buildings” Committee be listed on future agendas as standard format.

OLD BUSINESS:

Nothing to report

NEW BUSINESS:

Purchase Orders:

1) Deputy Chief Position: Chief Lutz reported that, per the board’s request from the May 18th Executive Session, the cost for using Ohio Fire Chief’s Association to search for someone to fill the Deputy Chief position is as follows (2 separate purchase orders):

Candidate Selection – $3,400 (advertising and job description set up)
Assessment Center – $5,500 (review candidate qualification and recommend top candidates)

Motion by: Mr. Takacs, Seconded by: Mr. Bartlett
ROLL CALL: All ayes

2) Resolution #11-027 Tax Budget for 2012: The resolution accepts the summary of amounts required from General Property Tax as approved by the County Auditor for the Madison Fire District 2012 budget.

Motion to adopt by: Mr. Anderson, Seconded by: Mr. Britton
ROLL CALL: All ayes

3) Swearing In Ceremony: Chief Lutz reported that the District has hired five (5) new employees. Mr. Szeman administered the Oath of Office to (3) in attendance*. The board congratulated each new member and welcomed them aboard.

*Ashley Estabrook- Firefighter/Paramedic
*Alan Doyle- Firefighter/Paramedic
*Michael McDonald- Firefighter/Paramedic
-Dorothy Rowen- Firefighter/Paramedic (currently on shift at MFD and to be sworn in later in meeting)
-Douglas Rought- Firefighter/EMT (currently in class elsewhere – to be sworn in at a later date)

CHIEF’S REPORT:

1) Monthly Incident Reports: Year-to-date, there have been 1335 calls which includes (24) Non-ER transports. The farthest transport has been to Rainbow’s Children’s Hospital in Cleveland.

2) New Employees: Chief Lutz reported that there will be (3) more new employees attend orientation on Friday 6/17/11 and an additional (3) more next week (background and medical checks). It is his intention that these (6) be sworn in at the July 20th meeting.

3) Glideslope Airway Management and Lucas 2 CPR Equipment: Per Chief Lutz, the new Glideslope and Lucas 2 equipment has been received and he is currently working on the lesson plans for training.

4) Dispatch Contract: Chief Lutz reported that he has recently received the new contract for 2011-2012 dispatching services. He will review said contact and bring it before the board for approval at the July 20th meeting.

5) App Architecture Professional Design and Engineering Services Contract: Mr. Szeman outlined many details of the draft contract negotiated with App Architecture for the Madison Fire District Capital Facilities Construction Project.

Basic Negotiations: Mr. Szeman reported that negotiations went well with App and the contract language was established very quickly. The basic contract language was modeled after a state contract from the Attorney General’s Office and 95% of the contract provisions that we presented were agreed to by App. In Mr. Szeman’s opinion, this format is best because it divides the work into clear decision points ensuring effective communications between the District and APP. The six basic phases are as follows: 1) Pre-Design; 2) Schematic Design; 3) Design Development; 4) Construction Documents; 5) Bidding and Negotiation; and 6) Construction. Both parties will be attentive to the goals of each phase, can review areas of concern, if any, and, if necessary, exhaust all options finding an acceptable remedy to said concern(s). This contract safeguards the Districts’ right to clearly give their approval at the completion of each phase, and ensures that both the District and App agree to move on to the next step.

Compensation:

a) The proposed Basic Services Fee for work provided by App (and its’ consultants) including engineering, site planning and landscape design (excluding Life Cycle Analysis and District Responsibilities listed below) is $534,000. Mr. Szeman reported that he did not negotiate this figure – neither accepted nor rejected – as it is the boards’ choice to decide on an agreeable fee. Per Szeman, Architectural Basic Services Fees are currently running at 8-10% of the total construction budget ($6 million). An over-budget contingency of $375,000 is built into the contract for costs up to 10% over original construction budget, and App may request an adjustment to their Basic Fee should costs exceed estimates.

b) Since the Life Cycle Energy Analysis is part of initial design documents, the board will need to decide soon whether they desire (not required) the energy efficiency analysis for each station.

Costs are as follows: Station #1 – $11,000; Station #2-$11,000; Station #3 – $3,000.

c) During construction, key App personnel will be onsite approximately once every other week. A provision is included in this contract for extra site visits (MFD initiated) at a rate of $1,000/visit. Video conferencing is also available.

Reimbursable Expenses: Mr. Szeman reported that a $4,500 allowance has been built into the contract for reimbursable expenses (i.e. building permit fees and other up-front fees for construction document reproduction, distribution and submission to governing authorities).

District Responsibilities/Costs (not included in App’s Basic Fee):

1) Site Surveys

2) Soil Testing

3) Wetland Delineation

4) Special Testing Required

Mr. Bartlett commented that he hopes App will use local businesses for any tests required.

Mr. Takacs asked for a definition of the term “architectural engineering services” and what role the District will play in “managing” said services. Mr. Szeman explained that App uses an Engineering Consulting Firm (Heapy Engineering), but all engineering services are included in the Basic Services Fee to APP Architecture and the District will not have any direct dealings with Heapy Engineering.

Mr. Takacs further inquired whether App will provide references for the services listed above under “District Responsibilities/Costs” and what will be expected from the District in seeing that these tests are completed and that the necessary test results are submitted and reviewed. Mr. Szeman assured Mr. Takacs that App will be responsible for the actual scheduling and responding appropriately to all tests required – the District is simply responsible for picking up the costs. Takacs commented that he is not interested in micro-managing or getting politically involved in any portions of the process or being responsible for resolving any conflicts that may arise. He expects that App will perform and manage the entire scope of the work required.

Mr. Bartlett inquired about the concerns presented in App’s recent email regarding possible engineering problems with the addition to Station #2 as identified during their initial visit. Per Mr. Szeman, additional engineering costs may be added due to complications “marrying” the old building to the new addition. Mr. Britton commented that many engineering braces were installed when the roof was put on Station #2 some years ago. Chief Lutz stated that if App identifies too many issues, perhaps we should consider building another Station#2 somewhere else (Bennett or Dock). Mr. Szeman stated that there is a provision (Section 5.4.5) in the agreement for making substantial changes and a price adjustment will be made to the Basic Fee (either more or less) if the scope of the project is substantially altered after the schematic design phase (including eliminating proposed stations entirely. Long stated that although App can engineer anything – the question is at what cost? Mr. Szeman commented that we won’t know probable construction costs to renovate Station #2 until App does their analysis. Bartlett suggested that we have App re-visit Station #2 immediately and determine whether the structural concerns are valid and if the project needs to be further addressed. Chief Lutz agreed and committed to setting up a meeting to have Station #2 reassessed.

Mr. Bartlett commented, for the record, that time lines stated in App’s initial proposal may require additional/special New Building Committee and/or Board meetings to meet construction deadlines.

Mr. Szeman presented Resolution #11-028 – Approving A Contract For Professional Design And Engineering Services With App Architecture Inc. (pursuant to Resolution #11-026).

Motion by: Mr. Bartlett, Seconded by: Mr. Anderson
ROLL CALL: All ayes

FOR THE RECORD – Station Number Assignments: Mr. Britton commented that App’s contract refers to “Station #1” as the new station being built at Rt. 528 in Madison Village when in actuality that will be Station #3. He stated that all existing stations will keep their own numbers. The future site (yet to be determined) in the northwest will be Station #4. Mr. Szeman explained that the reference numbers within the contract denotes App’s service chronology and construction order not station number. The District can issue stations whatever number they choose at the end of the construction process.

RESOLUTION NO. 11 – 028

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH APP ARCHITECTURE, INC.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 11 – 026, Legal Counsel was directed to commence contract negotiations with App Architecture, Inc. for its services; and

WHEREAS, Legal Counsel has presented the Board with a proposed contract that App Architecture, Inc. is prepared to accept (same being attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference); and

WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the proposed contract and, finding that it is in accord with the requirements for services established by the District, desires to accept same.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MADISON FIRE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LAKE AND STATE OF OHIO:

SECTION 1. The Board accepts the contract with App Architecture, Inc. as set forth Exhibit “A”.

SECTION 2. Chief Lutz is hereby authorized to sign the contract on behalf of the District.

SECTION 3. That it is found and determined that all formal actions of this Board concerning and relating to the adoption of this Resolution were adopted in an open meeting of this Board, and that all deliberations of this Board and any of its committees that resulted in such formal action were in meetings open to the public, in compliance with all legal requirements, including Section 121.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.

SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force and effect at the earliest prior allowed by law.

Other Items:

Swearing In Ceremony: Mr. Szeman administered the Oath of Office to Dorothy Rowan. The board again introduced themselves and welcomed Ms. Rowan aboard.

CLOSING PUBLIC PORTION:

No comments.

Mr. Brotzman reminded everyone of the July 20th Fire Board meeting at 7:00 pm.

Motion to adjourn by: Mr. Wayman, Seconded by: Mr. Bartlett
ROLL CALL: All ayes @ 7:56 pm