The URL can be used to link to this page

03-01-2005 City Council Special Meeting PacketCity of Grand Island Tuesday, March 01, 2005 Study Session/Special Mtg Packet City Council:Mayor: Jay Vavricek City Administrator: Gary Greer City Clerk: RaNae Edwards T u 7:00:00 PM Council Chambers - City Hall 100 East First Street Carole Cornelius Peg Gilbert Joyce Haase Margaret Hornady Robert Meyer Mitchell Nickerson Don Pauly Jackie Pielstick Scott Walker Fred Whitesides City of Grand Island City Council Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call A - SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ITEMS Individuals who have appropriate items for City Council consideration should complete the Request for Future Agenda Items form located at the Information Booth. If the issue can be handled administratively without Council action, notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study session, notification of the date will be given. B - RESERVE TIME TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items to reserve time to speak. Please come forward, state your name and address, and the Agenda topic on which you will be speaking. MAYOR COMMUNICATION This is an opportunity for the Mayor to comment on current events, activities, and issues of interest to the community. City of Grand Island City Council Item -1 Presentation of Site & Needs Study for the Fire Department Tuesday, March 01, 2005 Study Session/Special Mtg City of Grand Island Staff Contact: Jim Rowell City of Grand Island City Council Council Agenda Memo From: Fire Chief Jim Rowell Meeting: March 1, 2005 Subject: Fire Station #1 and Training Center Site and Needs Study Item #’s: 1 Presenter(s): RDG Group Background Following a City Council decision to move forward on replacement of Fire Station #1, a fire Training Center and other public facilities, a public vote was held to approve the sales tax as support for funding these facilities. Following this vote departments were directed to proceed with the identified projects. The fire department staff presented a proposal identifying a location west of Locust Street to be the new station location; and a site north of Capital Avenue for the training center. Following public comment the Council approved the establishment of a committee and the hiring of a consultant to conduct a study to determine the best options for replacement of the fire station and the location for a fire training center. Discussion The presentation will provide the results of the consultants and committees effort to provide viable options for consideration by City Council. The report is the culmination of months of process and work, gathering the information, conducting meetings and reviewing the work as it progressed. The consultants provided expertise from several areas including architecture, community planning, fire station design, training center design and fire department response planning. These areas were covered by the three companies composing the consulting group RDG, BKV, and ESCI. RDG was primary provider of the report and coordinated the efforts of the group. The committee included Fire Department staff, City Councilmember Bob Meyer, and a member of the public Mr. Duane Donaldson. The committee’s first task was to determine the best response to the request for proposals for the consultants and provide that to City Council for approval. Following the consultant selection and Council approval several public meetings were held with the committee and consultants over a period of three months. Conclusion The report will provide the results of the consultants work and give the Council information on which to base discussion and ultimately determine the best solution for the replacement of Fire Station #1 and the location of the Fire Training Center. This was a site and needs study and will provide information not only about location, but the size and space needs for both the training center and the fire station. The consultants will present the information using PowerPoint and answer questions as needed. Fire Department staff will also be available for questions. This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand. It is the intent of City Administration to bring this issue to a future council meeting for the site recommendation approval. �� GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 1 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT Site and Needs Study Prepared by in association with for the Grand Island Fire Department Grand Island, Nebraska February 2005 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 2 02.25.05 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. Fire and EMS Services Facility and Location Study 4. Fire Station a. Space Program b. Space Standards Diagrams c. Concept Station Plans and “Fit” Concept Site Plans d. Site Identification Mapping e. Site and Infrastructure Criteria f. Site Master Plan Concepts g. Preliminary Site Master Plan Ranking h. Final Site Master Planning i. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs 5. Training Center a. Needs Assessment b. Program c. Site Identification Mapping d. Site and Infrastructure Criteria e. Site Master Plan Concepts f. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs 6. Training Center Site Location Analysis A. Appendix Powerpoint Presentation Surveys TAB GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 3 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 3 02.25.05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The City of Grand Island engaged RDG Planning & Design of Omaha, Nebraska, and its associates from ESCI (Wilsonville, Oregon) and BKV Group (Minneapolis, Minnesota) to provide an independent report regarding the planned site acquisition, design, and con- struction of a new fire station and fire-training center. The report that follows includes a fire-station and training-center location analysis. The training-center requires preparation of a business plan as well. Through charrette workshops and other means, the RDG team: • Collected data from the fire department. • Interviewed representatives of the fire department, city administration, city plan- ning, the community, and other interested parties. • Toured the city of Grand Island. • Toured existing fire stations in Grand Island. • Developed a preliminary program for the fire station and training center. • Recommended strategies for the fire station and training center, taking into account (a) GIS modeling, (b) Grand Island’s comprehensive plan, (c) growth projections, (d) a windshield survey of the city and its immediate surroundings, and (e) the data gath- ered through charrettes and interviews. • Translated the programs into sample graphic footprint block diagrams and tested them on potential sites. • Analyzed each potential site according to its strengths, weaknesses, and cost impact. Drawing on the process described above and on team members’ expertise in city plan- ning and fire-facility planning, the team developed the report that follows. This report is intended to help decision-makers in their deliberations on the planned headquarters fire station and training center. The rest of this executive summary and the report itself address the fire station and the training center separately. Fire-station strategies are identified by letter and train- ing-site strategies by number. Depending on the site selected, the two programs may combine as a single project at a single site. Fire Station In the long run, upon full development and buildout of its response territory and through continued use of its existing location deployment scheme, the Grand Island Fire Department will be able to maintain the city’s response-time objective—six min- utes or less—for first-due company arrival. After anticipated real-estate development, response times could increase by about 3 percent. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 4 02.25.05 Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00 Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92%73% Strategy “A”93%82% Strategy “B”91%82% Strategy “C”93%82% Strategy “D”92%85% Strategy “E”90%81% Strategy “F”94%84% Deployment Strategy Performance Projection Summary As indicated by the table above, Site Strategy F is projected to offer the greatest improvement over continued use of the current deployment locations. Site Strategies A and C could offer slight performance improvement, though all six deployment site strategies are projected to vary only a little in performance. Accordingly, the city could adopt any one of the site strategies and maintain service levels; that is, each site strategy would accommodate a first-unit arrival of six minutes or less. Because each site strategy meets the fire department’s 90-percent response-time standard, the fire department—after reviewing an early draft of this report—concluded that Site Strategy D could be eliminated as an option: any growth in service need could be accommodated on the airport. Thus Site Strategy D would not be reviewed as part of the architectural analysis. Site Strategy C was seen as having operational limitations for response times when the Heartland Events Center was in use. Site Strategy C was included in the architectural review, however, since response-time delays would occur primarily during events, and since these delays could be alleviated through traffic planning, traffic-control technology, and public/private involvement. Thus, the team evaluated Site Strategies A, B, C, E, and F. Because of the existing coverage percentages, ESCI determined that the station should be located within one-quarter mile of the intersections recommended in the operational analysis. The RDG team proceeded to identify several potential sites within the recommended location envelope. We found that: • Site Strategies B, C, E, and F have no architectural limitations that would eliminate them from consideration. • Site F would require the city to use Lyons Park for the proposed Station 2. • Site Strategies A and E would involve site-acquisition costs. • Site Strategy C has operational limitations. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 5 02.25.05 As part of the review of site locations, we divided the fire station program into two components: administration and operations. If administration could be located at the training center or another facility, then the team could consider smaller sites for the fire station, making site acquisition less of a hurdle. Based on site reviews, strengths, weaknesses, and costs, we recommend that Site Strategy F be implemented for the fire station. Training Center Training-center programming was done in the same way as that for the fire station, though operational issues played a smaller role. Response times for potential training center sites were considered. Business planning for the training center, however, should be completed before any location is selected. The principal factors in training-center location appear to be operational and business models. Answers to the following questions would be determined by the business plan procedures. Without these answers it is impossible to program the training center in detail for its use as a regional or state fire-training asset or to determine its cost. 1. How many students would use the training center? 2. How many classes would be held? 3. How many and what types of departments would use the training center? 4. How would the Nebraska Fire Marshal and other interested entities (including edu- cational institutions) use the training center? 5. How would training be funded? 6. How would funding influence the number of classrooms and training props? 7. How would the training center be operated (for example, by a facility manager)? This information was not available to the design team and thus is not a factor in this re- port. Programming was based on assumptions made by the design team and on infor- mation provided by the Grand Island Fire Department. Accordingly, the recommended square footage is based on the fire departments stated needs and will be impacted once a business plan is completed. For example, our programming calls for three classrooms in addition to the proposed training room in the new fire station. If our assumptions are incorrect and the training center is instead programmed to accommodate only the Grand Island Fire Department, one additional classroom would be sufficient, and that classroom could be accommo- dated in the College Park facility (per a discussion with College Park’s executive direc- tor); the two additional classrooms might never be used. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 6 02.25.05 All potential sites meet the architectural and planning criteria. The team ranked poten- tial training center sites based on the following criteria: • Cost of land • Impact on neighbors • Response time/depth of coverage during training • Impact of prevailing winds • Availability of infrastructure • Ability to co-locate the fire station • Ability to co-locate fire department administration • Access to the interstate • Availability of existing teaching infrastructure (classrooms) • Availability of existing high bay • Availability of EVOC • Capital cost of facilities • Potential of site to allow growth • Willingness of site owner to sell or allow use of property Based on these factors, the site’s ability to accommodate the architectural program, and input from property owners, the team has ranked potential sites as follows: 1. Site #1, land adjacent to Central Community College and College Park 2. Site #3, land adjacent to the proposed law enforcement center 3. Site #4, the northern farm property along Capital Avenue E 4. Site #2, land available at Fonner Park This study recommends that training center site #1 be implemented in conjunction with fire station Site Strategy F. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 7 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 7 02.25.05 INTRODUCTION Introduction Introduction RDG Planning & Design was retained to help the City of Grand Island determine loca- tions for the planned headquarters station and fire training center. The city requested a fair and independent review of its current proposed sites and welcomed documen- tation of sites not proposed as they would relate to the city’s future expansion and its current emergency-services coverage. Recent annexations have included the regional airport. Grand Island covers 21 square miles with a population of 44,000. The city is served by four fire stations. The fire department employs 24 paramedics and 39 EMT-basics for a total of 63, on a three-platoon system, plus 6 administrative staff members. In 2003 the department responded to 2,565 calls, most of which were medical assists. Emergency Medical Services comprise two front-line ambulances staffed with two paramedics each. Grand Island has four reserve ambulances staffed with a combination of paramedics and EMT-B’s. Ambulance service is contracted with the county for trans- ports and covers multiple counties in central Nebraska. Fire suppression is limited to the city limits. Grand Island is in a Mutual Aid District and responds with appropriate apparatus when requested. The hazmat team is regional and covers central Nebraska. Station #1 is responsible for structural firefighting and also supports the airport in ARFF emergencies. Station #2 houses technical rescue. Station #3 houses extrication. Station #4 houses the hazmat assets. The following items are addressed in this report: Fire Station o Consideration of response times o ISO consideration o Deployment of resources o Apparatus o NFPA 1710, 2 in 2 out response o Coverage in depth o Essential response force o Future growth and development o Condition of existing Fire Station 1 o Ability of sites to accommodate building program o Adjacency diagrams o Site-planning diagrams GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 8 02.25.05 Fire Training Center o Appropriate facility program o Consideration of response times o Adjacency diagrams o Site-planning diagrams o Impact on neighbors o Ability to co-locate other facilities o Ability of the sites to accommodate the training program o Cost of the facility The programs were developed to comply with typical industry standards for fire sta- tions and training facilities. Fire department personnel to be located at these two facilities are currently housed at City Hall, Station #1 and Station #2. The fire department had proposed replacing Station #1 near fire station Site Strategy A. The team agreed that it was a strong location and should be included in this report. We understand that there has been community resistance to this site, however, as well as encouragement to use land at Fonner Park, which may entail little or no cost. These factors were considered in our review of the proposed strategies. This report will outline six site strategies for replacing Station #1 and four site strategies for locating the training center. The report also considers how the facilities would fit on the potential fire-station and training sites. Several specialized spaces will require special design attention, including a training tower, an emergency-vehicle operations course, water supply, and a rescue pond. The nature of the fire department’s work demands continuity and unhindered access to the community as well as academic and practical training facilities. Planning and con- struction considerations center on the need for an environment that promotes func- tionality, responsiveness, and good training. Currently, the Grand Island Fire Depart- ment does not have physical resources conducive to good training. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 9 02.25.05 Acknowledgements David Streebin, AIA Leonard Enz, AIA Cory L. Scott Project Architect Programming & Schematic Design Planning & Schematic Design RDG Planning & Design BKV Group Emergency Services Consulting, Inc. Ted Redmond Fire Station Consultant Phil Kouwe Fire Consultant Jim Rowel Chris Hoffman Fred Hotz Troy Hughes Terry Leslie Curt Rohling Duane Donaldson Bob Meyer Chief Administrative Assistant Division Chiefs Committee Member Grand Island Fire Department City of Grand Island Jay Vavricek Gary Greer Chad Nabity Mayor City Administrator Planning Director GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 10 02.25.05 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS Population and Community Risk _____________________________________________________13 Current Population Information_____________________________________________________________ 13 Census-based Growth Projections ___________________________________________________________ 14 Community Risk Analysis __________________________________________________________________ 15 Workload History_________________________________________________________________________ 20 Workload Projections _____________________________________________________________________ 21 System Benchmark Comparisons ____________________________________________________23 Current Resources and Deployment __________________________________________________24 Current Facility and Apparatus Deployment ___________________________________________________ 24 Current Staffing Deployment_______________________________________________________________ 28 Current Staffing Evaluation_________________________________________________________________ 30 Service Delivery Options____________________________________________________________35 Future “Full Buildout” Deployment Strategy ___________________________________________________ 35 Deployment Strategy A- New Station #1 at Walnut and Charles Streets_____________________________ 39 Strategy A Projected Performance___________________________________________________________ 41 Deployment Strategy B- New Station #1 at Sycamore and First Streets _____________________________ 42 Strategy B Projected Performance ___________________________________________________________ 44 Deployment Strategy C- New Station #1 on E. Fonner Park Road __________________________________ 45 Strategy C Projected Performance___________________________________________________________ 49 Deployment Strategy D- Relocations of Station #1 and Station #2 _________________________________ 51 Strategy D Projected Performance___________________________________________________________ 53 Deployment Strategy E- Relocations of Station #1 at Training Site Three____________________________ 55 Strategy E Projected Performance ___________________________________________________________ 57 Deployment Strategy F- Relocations of Station #1 and Station #2, Retention of Old Station #2 as EMS Station ________________________________________________________________________ 58 Strategy F Projected Performance ___________________________________________________________ 60 Findings and Conclusions___________________________________________________________62 Map Appendix ____________________________________________________________________65 11 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Grand Island Population By Age..................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2: Grand Island Housing By Occupancy.........................................................................................................................14 Figure 3: Census-based Population Forecast ............................................................................................................................15 Figure 4: Community Fire Impact Risk Assessment Map.......................................................................................................20 Figure 5: Workload Historical Data................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 6: Emergency Incident Volume Projection By Type And Year...............................................................................22 Figure 7: Comparative Analysis- All Apparatus and Facilities..............................................................................................23 Figure 8: Current Response Time Capability Of GIFD Stations............................................................................................25 Figure 9: Service Demand- Fire and Other Non-EMS Calls Preceding 24 Months........................................................26 Figure 10: Service Demand- Emergency Medical Calls Preceding 24 Months..............................................................27 Figure 11: Actual Response Time Performance By Type Of Incident................................................................................28 Figure 12: Staffing Needs By Risk...................................................................................................................................................32 Figure 13: Average Staffing Performance By Type Of Call....................................................................................................34 Figure 14: Future Street Network Buildout Projection...........................................................................................................37 Figure 15: Future Service Demand Buildout Projection........................................................................................................38 Figure 16: Deployment Strategy "A".............................................................................................................................................39 Figure 17: Strategy A Coverage and Community Risk............................................................................................................40 Figure 18: Strategy "A" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................41 Figure 19: Deployment Strategy "B".............................................................................................................................................42 Figure 17: Strategy B Coverage and Community Risk............................................................................................................43 Figure 18: Strategy "B" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................44 Figure 21: Deployment Strategy "C".............................................................................................................................................45 Figure 17: Strategy C Coverage and Community Risk............................................................................................................46 Figure 18: Strategy "C" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................49 Figure 23: Deployment Strategy "D".............................................................................................................................................52 Figure 17: Strategy D Coverage and Community Risk...........................................................................................................53 Figure 18: Strategy "D" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................54 Figure 23: Deployment Strategy "E".............................................................................................................................................55 Figure 17: Strategy E Coverage and Community Risk............................................................................................................56 Figure 18: Strategy "E" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................57 Figure 23: Deployment Strategy "F".............................................................................................................................................59 12 Figure 17: Strategy F Coverage and Community Risk............................................................................................................60 Figure 18: Strategy "F" Performance Analysis...........................................................................................................................61 Figure 25: Deployment Strategy Performance Projection Summary...............................................................................62 Figure 26: Projected Performance of All Strategies at Four Minutes................................................................................63 13 POPULATION AND COMMUNITY RISK Current Population Information The population of Grand Island was 42,940 residents in the 2000 U.S. Census. This population figures represented a moderate 9% increase over the 1990 Census, when the population of Grand Island was 39,386, and slows the trend of the 1980’s when the population increased by over 18%. The following figures provide some general demographic information on population and housing for the City of Grand Island. Figure 1: Grand Island Population By Age Demographics- Population By Age - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Age <5 5 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and up Total Pop Age <5 5 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and up 2000 42,940 3,369 12,285 12,295 5,554 3,364 2,946 3,127 1990 39,386 3,086 11,473 12,264 3,493 3,306 3,086 2,678 change 9% 9% 7% 0% 59% 2% -5% 17% Selected Demographic Information- City of Grand Island- 1990 to 2000 As can be seen from the figure, 14% of the population is 65 years of age or older, representing a significant target age group for increased service demand in emergency medical incidents. When analyzing trends, this target age group has increased by 5% from 1990 levels. At the same time, the age group under 5 years of 14 age, also widely recognized as a significant risk group in fire and emergency medical incidents, has increased by 8% since 1990. Figure 2: Grand Island Housing By Occupancy Demographics- Housing By Occupancy 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant 2000 17421 10307 6119 995 1990 15855 9270 5974 611 change 10% 11% 2% 63% Selected Housing Information- City of Grand Island- 1990 to 2000 As can be seen from the above figures, Grand Island has a significant number of renter-occupied housing units. Statistics often show a higher than average service demand for emergency services in communities with high rates of rental housing. From the demographic information reviewed here, it can be projected that Grand Island may experience a slightly higher demand for emergency services than other communities of its size. Census-based Growth Projections As indicated earlier in this section, the population of Grand Island has grown by about 9% in the last decade. In developing forecasts for population growth, we typically 15 develop a forecast based on several decades of census experience. We have chosen to use the growth rate for the previous three decades, along with the 2003 Census Bureau estimate of population, as the basis for this population forecast, and project another 11% increase in the coming decade. Were this projected population increase to occur in a fairly even fashion, the resulting population forecast would appear as follows. Figure 3: Census-based Population Forecast Population Projection By Census Experience 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Population 44720 45632 46544 47456 48368 49280 50191 51103 52015 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 The population projection provided in this chart reflects changes in resident (permanent) population only. It should also be anticipated that additional growth in transient (mostly daytime) population can be expected as expansion in the City’s regional commerce develops. Developments such as “big-box” retail, regional shopping centers, and regional entertainment facilities tend to draw transient population from a larger area than just the City of Grand Island. Community Risk Analysis Fire Protection Risk Factors While there are many considerations that can be assessed when evaluating a community’s fire protection risks, the issues can be narrowed into two major 16 categories. How likely is it that a fire will occur within a given area and how much impact will the fire have if it does occur? The geographic community risk analysis involves the answers to both of these questions. The first phase of the fire protection risk analysis involves statistical analysis of the risk of fire occurrence. The second involves an analysis of the consequences, or community impact, of a fire if it does occur. In a community with stable growth, this likelihood of fire occurrence is reasonably tracked through an analysis of fire incident experience. In the absence of significant physical or cultural change, such as major factory closings or civil unrest, the analysis of fire experience yields a fair insight into the likelihood that a fire will occur within a given time period and within a given area. This fire incident experience analysis can be conducted on a regular, annual basis by the fire department. How much impact a fire is likely to have on a community if it does occur is a factor involving more prediction than experience? For instance, a fire in a vacant garage has little overall impact on the economic welfare of a community while a fire in the primary facility of a city’s major employer can be devastating. Even if an analysis of fire experience shows both are equally likely to occur, one fire carries far more dire consequences that the other. A complete community fire protection risk analysis must involve some process of identifying the areas within the community where a fire will have greatest negative impact. Consequence Factors The consequence evaluation in our community fire risk analysis takes into account several major factors in an effort to geographically identify those areas of the community where fire is likely to have greatest impact. During our community evaluation, these consequence factors are assessed and utilized in placing structures into risk categories that carry numerical weight in the overall risk analysis formula. ¾ Life Risk: Structures within a given community that present a significant risk for large 17 loss of life are assessed a higher risk score, despite what may appear to be a smaller size. As an example, even a relatively small apartment structure with multiple families will assess as a higher risk than a comparatively large single- family dwelling. Hotels or high-rise occupancies will assess as higher risks than a commercial or light industrial occupancy. Structures used to house or assemble high-risk populations, such as elderly or disabled persons, will also assess at high risk. In general, the consequences of fire incidents in such structures can be a significant loss of life and is weighted accordingly in the risk analysis. ¾ Economic Impact: Even though the destruction of a particular property may not result in any loss of life, the impact on a community can be devastating if it has a strong effect on the economy. Loss of employment, decreased taxable value, reduction or losses of associated service industry are all examples of the negative economic impact that fire can have on a community. However, economic impact of a fire depends on the type, use, and size of the structure involved. Even total destruction of a single-family dwelling will have little overall impact on a community’s economy, no matter how large the house. Likewise, loss of a single commercial entity, such as a restaurant or auto repair shop, may have an economic impact that is both temporary and limited to the local neighborhood. Loss of significant industrial facility or manufacturer, however, can cripple an entire community’s economy for months or even years. The predictable economic impact, therefore, is also considered when placing structures into risk categories in the analysis. ¾ Resource Demand: The outcome of a fire incident in comparison with the resources available is somewhat predictable. For instance, a study by the National Fire Protection Association on residential structure fires from 1994 to 1998 indicated that fatalities and dollar loss were over 85% lower in those incidents where the fire was contained to the room of origin. Doing so requires the proper number of 18 firefighters and resources to arrive on the incident quickly enough to effectively deploy and contain the fire in its early stages. An ineffective number of resources or a later arrival would permit the fire to spread beyond the room of origin with predictable results. For this reason, we evaluate the approximate number of firefighters and engine companies necessary to rapidly and effectively contain a fire within given structures. The structures are generally categorized within the medium, high, or maximum range for needed resources in accordance with the resource table utilized in the International Fire Service Accreditation Congress (IFSAC) model. The quantity and density of each category within given geographical areas (in this case using zoning classes) are utilized within the overall risk formula. Methodology Our geographic community risk analysis begins with a basic review of the land use classifications for the area studied. Future land use classifications are utilized because they are an existing regulated classification that typically involves the type, use, size, and density of structures within a given geographical boundary. As indicated earlier, these factors weigh heavily in the evaluation of both the likelihood of fire occurrence and the anticipated impact of a fire incident. By utilizing the land use classes, we take advantage of existing classifications that have already been defined and involve these factors. Each community, however, differs slightly in the specifications for structure size, use, and density from class to class in their future land use plan. Therefore, we conduct a basic review of each land use classification in areas already developed for purposes of establishing a standard risk-density factor that is based on true counts of structures within each class. This process is conducted by actually driving through, street-by- street, representative areas of the various land use classes and conducting a “windshield assessment” of structure type, use, and risk category. These physical counts are translated into the community risk assessment using mathematical formulas and geographic information systems software (GIS). A 19 mathematical formula is utilized that considers the number and density of structures as categorized by potential community impact, consequence factors, and resource demand. In the next step, geographic information systems (GIS) software is used to determine the precise size of the sample areas evaluated. The total risk score of each area is divided by the size of the sample area in acres to arrive at the risk density factor. In most cases, several sample areas of each land use class are used and then averaged to increase dependability of the results. This risk density factor can be used for comparison purposes when evaluating the overall fire risk within the community by each land use class. A graphical representation of this risk analysis can then be derived from the numerical risk factor. The figure below shows each future land use classification from the community’s Comprehensive Plan with colored shading that corresponds to the relative fire risk/impact in comparison with the overall community. Areas are shaded in progressive depths of red color to indicate relative fire risk/impact. Again, it should be remembered that the risk ratings shown are derived using the future land use classifications. This means that the relative risk of areas not yet developed are shown in the shade of their future intended use, not their current use. 20 Figure 4: Community Fire Impact Risk Assessment Map Darker shading indicates areas of higher fire risk As stated earlier, the geographic representation of relative community fire risk/impact is useful as one element in staff and resource deployment planning. Workload History The City of Grand Island has experienced a reasonably stable number of emergency responses. The following chart shows how response volume has changed over the last eight years. The chart is inclusive of mutual aid calls provided to areas outside the city limits of Grand Island. 21 Figure 5: Workload Historical Data Eight-Year Workload History 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fire/Other EMS Workload Projections In evaluating the deployment of facilities, resources and staffing, it is important that consideration be given to potential changes in workload that could directly affect such deployment. Radical changes in service demand can require changes and adjustments in the deployment of staff and resources in order to maintain acceptable levels of performance. For purposes of this study, we utilized population projections obtained through census information and multiplied these by incident rate figures to identify workload potential through the year 2020. The incident rate figures for fire and EMS for each year are an average of the incident rate per thousand residents experienced during the previous twelve years for fire and eight years for EMS. These numbers should provide a reasonable reflection of the anticipated trends. The results of the analysis are shown, by year, in the following chart and table. 22 Figure 6: Emergency Incident Volume Projection By Type And Year Workload Projection 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Fire 640 653 666 679 691 704 717 730 EMS 3229 3293 3358 3422 3487 3551 3616 3680 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 23 SYSTEM BENCHMARK COMPARISONS The following chart compares the number of apparatus and facility resources, by type, of the Grand Island Fire Department to other cities of similar size in the north central region of the United States1. The chart indicates that the City of Grand Island is operating with a fairly normal number of fire stations, engines, and aerial devices as a typical community of this population size. Comparison data is from the National Fire Protection Association “2002 Fire Department Profiles” publication. Figure 7: Comparative Analysis- All Apparatus and Facilities Comparison of Resources per 1,000 Population 0.090 0.112 0.022 0.091 0.114 0.023 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 Stations Pumpers Aerials Regional Mean Grand Island FD We note that the chart compares physical assets available to the department (reserve apparatus not included). It is not intended to reflect the number of in-service companies that are staffed and available for dispatch. In Grand Island, two of the pumpers shown above are actually cross-staffed with another vehicle. When one vehicle is on a call, the remaining fire suppression resource with which it is cross- staffed is no longer available for a call. Were the two cross-staffed pumpers removed from the benchmark comparison, Grand Island’s pumper ratio would drop to .069. 1 The NFPA statistical data breaks the U.S. into four regional areas: north east, south east, north central and west. Nebraska falls into the north central region and comparison data is taken from that group. 24 Current Resources and Deployment Current Facility and Apparatus Deployment The Grand Island Fire Department operates out of four facilities, distributed across the urbanized areas of the city. The following information provides a photo of each facility, its location, and the front-line apparatus2 assigned to the facility at the time of the study. Station # 1- 302 Pine Street S. Station # 2- 1720 Broadwell Avenue N. Station # 3- 2310 Webb Road S. Station # 4- 3690 State Street W. 2 The pumper and ladder shown at station #2 and the pumper and rescue shown at station #3 are considered front-line apparatus, but are cross-staffed with a single three- person crew. 25 The following map depicts the locations of the four current fire stations, and demonstrates the response time capabilities of these stations. The response time is modeled using a one-minute turnout time and projected travel time on the actual roadway network, with travel speeds of based on road classifications. The portions of streets shown with a green overlay are within a four-minute response profile of a fire station. Portions of streets shown with a yellow overlay are within a five-minute response profile of a fire station. Portions of streets shown with a red overlay are within a six-minute response profile of a fire station. The intent of this map is to provide quick visual display of the response times that can be anticipated to be “normal” within the various geographic areas of the City. Figure 8: Current Response Time Capability Of GIFD Stations &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 Four Minutes •• Five Minutes •• Six Minutes •• 26 A detailed geographic analysis indicates that this current station deployment is capable of reaching 90% of the City’s developed areas within a six-minute response time, 78% within a five-minute response time and 63% within a four-minute response time. In addition to the geographic coverage of the current station, it is also useful to examine the location of the station in comparison to the actual service demand within the area. The following map indicates the geographical location of fire incidents and other non-medical calls responded to by the Grand Island Fire Department during the previous twenty-four calendar month period. Figure 9: Service Demand- Fire and Other Non-EMS Calls Preceding 24 Months &\ &\ &\ &\ # ## # # # # # #### # # # # ## ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ### # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #### # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## ## #### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # #### ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ## ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ### # ## # ### ## # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # ## # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 27 The following map indicates the geographical location of emergency medical incidents responded to by the Grand Island Fire Department during the previous twenty-four calendar month period. For purposes of this study, the figure displays only the immediate Grand Island area and is not intended to be inclusive of the entire region under GIFD’s EMS jurisdiction. Figure 10: Service Demand- Emergency Medical Calls Preceding 24 Months ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # #### ## # # # # # # ### # ### ## # # ## # # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # ## # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # #### # ### ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # ## # ## ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ### # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## ## # ## ### # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # ### # # ## # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ## # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # ###### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ##### # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### #### ### # # # # # ## # # # # # ## #### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ### # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ### ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ### # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # #&\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 28 A detailed service demand analysis indicates that this current station deployment is capable of reaching over 96% of the City’s fire-related incidents and over 95% of the City’s emergency medical incidents within a six-minute response time. In fact, review of statistical information reveals that the department’s average response time within the City during the last two years is five minutes. The following figure provides greater detail of the actual response time performance of the department. Average and 90th percentile response times are shown for various types of emergency incidents. Figure 11: Actual Response Time Performance By Type Of Incident Response Time Performance By Incident Type 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Other Hazardous Condition Service Call Emergency Medical Call False or Fictitious Alarm Fire- Other Good Intent Call Structure Fire Vehicle Accident/Rescue Minutes 90th Percentile Average Current Staffing Deployment Grand Island currently staffs its station with personnel who are cross-trained to operate in both fire suppression and emergency medical services and whose assignment to apparatus or companies may vary from incident to incident. 29 Up to twenty-one personnel may be assigned to each of three rotating 24-hour shifts. When all positions are filled and no leave vacancies are occurring, all twenty-one of these personnel would be on-duty, with five of these being company officers. Given the standard leave time per employee provided in the employment policies, this level of staffing is the exception rather than the rule. Minimum staffing levels are set at sixteen per shift, with at least four company officers. A structure fire dispatch3 in Grand Island receives a standard of coverage that includes the dispatch of two engines, one ambulance, and one truck (aerial), along with either a rescue or a third pumper (geography dependent). This standard of coverage provides for a maximum initial response staffing of nineteen and a minimum staffing of fourteen personnel at a structure fire. Low-risk incidents, such as vehicle fires, rubbish fires and other such calls are typically provided a standard of coverage involving a single engine. This standard of coverage provides for a maximum initial response staffing of four and a minimum staffing of three personnel at a low-risk fire incident. Those incidents involving, or potentially involving, emergency medical needs are also provided an ambulance and an additional two persons. An eight-agency regional mutual aid system is in place. This system has the capability for expanding the response to major incidents at the fourth alarm and higher, providing additional staffing to the incident from surrounding agencies. Agencies involved in the regional system include Alda, Cairo, Chapman, Doniphan, Grand Island Rural, Phillips, and Wood River, and Saint Libory Fire Departments. 3 Other classes of moderate and high risk incidents are typically also given this full-alarm response protocol. 30 Current Staffing Evaluation Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components, life safety, and fire flow. The life safety tasks are based upon the number of building occupants, their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety related tasks involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire flow component involves delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an environment within the building that allows entry by firefighters. 31 The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the command officer must prioritize the tasks and complete some in chronological order rather than concurrently. These tasks include: • Command • Scene safety/Accountability • Search and rescue • Fire attack • Water supply • Pump operation • Ventilation • Back-up/Rapid intervention The Commission on Fire Accreditation International of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) has produced benchmarks for the number of personnel required on scene for various levels of risk. Low-risk incidents typically refer to trash and small vehicle fires, investigations, wires down, or other incidents with little threat of spread. Moderate risk typically refers to structure fires up to and including single family residential structures of 2,200 square feet. High risk typically refers to commercial or industrial buildings, and single or multi-family residential structures up to three stories. Maximum risk refers to large-scale conflagrations, multiple building involvement, high-rise structures, large square-footage structures, extensive hazardous materials incidents and other types of calls requiring large amounts of manpower and equipment beyond the third or fourth alarm. This information is shown in the following chart. 32 Figure 12: Staffing Needs By Risk Minimum Firefighting Personnel Needed Based On Level of Risk Task4 Max. Risk High Risk Mod. Risk Low Risk Attack line 4 4 2 2 Search and rescue 4 2 2 Ventilation 4 2 2 Backup line/rapid intervention 4 3 2 2 Pump operator 1 1 1 1 Water supply 1 1 1 Utilities support 1 1 1 Command/safety 2 2 2 1# Forcible entry * Salvage * Overhaul 1* Communication 1 Chief’s aide 1 1 Operations section chief 1 Logistics 1 Planning 1* Staging 1* Rehabilitation 1 Division/group supervisors 2* High-rise evacuation 10* Stairwell support 10* Total 49 17 13 6 # Can often be handled by the first due officer. * At maximum and high-risk fires, additional personnel may be needed. The other widely accepted model for incident staffing is the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710 “Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations… By Career Fire Departments”. Like the Accreditation Model, this standard calls for the assignment of at least 13 personnel on a first-alarm structural fire incident response, 14 personnel when an aerial device is in operation. This standard calls for all companies to be staffed by four personnel, either responding together as a single company or in multiple vehicles with pre-designated assignment to assemble as a four-person company upon arrival. Utilizing the standard of coverage currently adopted by Grand Island Fire Department for low-risk incidents does not provide for a six-person response as provided by 4 All tasks may be functional during the early moments of firefighting, but sometimes certain duties take place in sequence depending on the situation, thus reducing the total number of people needed. 33 example in the Accreditation Model. However, since the model does not require these personnel to arrive within any specific time frame, it is assumed that additional manpower can be requested when attack lines are put in operation at such incidents to achieve six-person incident staffing when necessary. However, current procedures also do not provide consistent four-person first-due company staffing as required by NFPA 1710 during periods of minimum engine staffing. Utilizing the standard of coverage currently adopted by Grand Island Fire Department will provide sufficient staffing to both match the Accreditation Model for all moderate risk incidents and meet the recommendations of NFPA 1710 for initial alarm structure fire assignments. The department uses additional alarm assignments and call-back of off-duty personnel to meet the staffing requirements for high-risk incidents. Maximum risk incidents are rare and are typically considered to be incidents that, by their nature, involve the use of extensive special-called mutual aid, as provided by the regional program. In addition to reviewing the department’s standard or cover to evaluate the sufficiency of its staffing, we also analyzed data from the past two years and identified the actual incident staffing performance by type of call. The following figure provides the average on-scene staffing by various classifications of incidents. 34 Figure 13: Average Staffing Performance By Type Of Call Average Staffing Performance By Incident Type 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.5 5.1 5.2 5.4 17.7 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 Emergency Medical Call Other Vehicle Accident Weather Service Call Hazardous Condition Other Fire Good Intent Call Faulty or Fictitious Alarm Structure Fire The figure indicates that GIFD has had relatively good success at achieving higher staffing on structural fire incidents through the use of call-back of off-duty personnel. 35 SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS During the course of this study, we have extensively utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to analyze response times of both apparatus and personnel by modeling this response against the actual roadway network. This process allows us to create and model various deployment strategies with surprising accuracy. In addition, the use of geographic placement of data relating to actual incident service demand from the previous two calendar years allows us to summarize the modeled performance of these deployment strategies, again with great detail. The analysis of the current resource and staffing deployment is found in a previous section of this report, including performance levels in both geographic coverage and service demand coverage. The following sections describe our analysis of four additional deployment strategies. Future “Full Buildout” Deployment Strategy In a jurisdiction experiencing growth and development, it is critical to think well in advance when developing strategies for station deployment. Failure to do so can often require the later relocation of stations built with insufficient consideration to the buildout of the community. As a community develops, there tends to be a natural urge to build fire stations where they are best suited to serve the development as it exists at the moment when funds are made available for the project. However, these locations often turn out to be inadequate when further development occurs later on. For this reason, we strongly recommend that growing communities begin by developing “buildout projections” of street networks and service demand as it may exist in the distant future. This can provide the foundation for a station deployment strategy that will provide adequate and effective service delivery when full development of the community is completed. 36 The response time performance benchmark for this study was the standard used by the Grand Island Fire Department of first-due unit arrival of six-minutes or less to 90% of incidents, with a full-alarm arrival of ten minutes or less. As indicated earlier, we begin by creating a “buildout projection” of the community served by GIFD. This is done by taking the street networks in existing neighborhoods and replicating them in undeveloped areas of the community that have similar assigned land-use and zoning in the community’s comprehensive plans and are expected to fully develop within the planning period covered by this study. Consideration of potential annexations by the City is also depicted in the buildout. Major thoroughfare networks and transportation corridor improvements that are identified in the plans are also considered, to the extent possible. The information used in the construction of this model is derived from interviews with City planning officials, along with the City’s comprehensive plan. While this results in, at best, a sort of “artist’s rendition” of what the community may be like in the future, it does provide some basis on which to model the effectiveness of various deployment strategies that depend on street networks for analysis. The following map depicts this “buildout projection” of future community development. 37 Figure 14: Future Street Network Buildout Projection &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 In similar fashion, service demand is modeled by replicating the service demand within existing neighborhoods. Service demand from the previous twelve months was used as the basis for this projection. Red dots represent projected future fire incidents and green dots represent projected future EMS incidents for graphic depiction of potential service demand. 38 Figure 15: Future Service Demand Buildout Projection ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # #### ## # # # # # # ### # ### ## # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # #### # ### ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # ## # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ### # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## ## ## # ## ### # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # ### # # ## # # # # # ### ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ## # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## ## # # ###### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## #### ## # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### ## # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ##### # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### #### ### # # # # # ## # # # # # ## #### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## ## # # # ### # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # ## # # ## ## # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # ### ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ### # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ### # # # ## # # ## # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ### ## ## #### # #### ## ## ## # ## # ########## ## ##### ## # ######### # # # # ## # # # # # # # ####### ## ## ## # ## ## # ## ## #### ###### ### ####### ## #### ## ### # ##### ## ## # #### #### ## # ## ## # # # ## # # # ### ## # # # ## # #### # # # # # # ##### ##### # ## # ##### ## ## # # # ### # ## # #### # # # # # ### # # #### # ###### ### # ########## ## ## ###### ## # ## # #### ## ## # ## ## # # ##### ## ## # #### #### ## # ## ### # # ## # # # ### ## # # # ## # #### # # # # # # ##### ##### # ## # ##### ## ## # # # ### # ## # #### # # # # # ### # # #### # ###### ### # ########## ## ## ###### ## # ## # #### ## ## # ## ## # # ######## # # # ############# # # ## ####### # ############ ###### ## ##### #### #### #################### ### ##### ############ ############# # # ## # # ### ####### ### # ################ # # ## # # ### # # ## # ### # ############ # ########### # ############ # # # #### ####### ## ###### ## ### ## ##### # ##### ## ### # #### # # # #### ### # ## #### ### # # ## #### ## ###### ########################################################## # #### ###### ## ###### ########################################################## # #### ##### ## ###### # ## # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # #### # # # # ## ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # ### # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # #### # ## # # # # # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # ## ## #### # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # ## ## # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # #### ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # ## # ## # # # ## # # ### # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # ## ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # ## ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # # # # ## # # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # ### # # # # ### ## # # # # # # # # # ### ## # # # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # ## # # # ## # # # # # # #### # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## ### # # # # # # # # ## # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # ## # ## # # # # ## # ## # ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # ### # # ## # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # ## # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # ### ## ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # ## # ### ## ## # ## ###### ## # #### ##### # # # ## ######### ### # # ## # # # # # ###### # # # # # # # # ## # ##### # # #### # ## ####### # ###### # ## # ##### # # # # ## ## # # # # # #### ### ## ## ### # # # ## ######### ### # # ## # # # # # ###### # # # # # # # # ## # ##### # # #### # ## ####### # ###### # ## # ##### # # # # ## ## # # # # # #### ##### ## ### # # # ## ######### ### # ### ### # # ## # ##### # # ####### ##### ###### # ## # # ### # # # ### ####### #### # # # ## ## # ## ### ## ## ### #### ### # #### # ### ## ## ### ## ### # ## ## # # # ## # # # # &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 Under this projected service demand, the current GIFD facility deployment would be capable of a six-minute response time to only 73% of the road miles of the City5 and about 93% of incidents in the future. This is would be a slight degradation from current service delivery levels. 5 Number represents a percentage of total number of miles of developed roadways in the City. 39 Deployment Strategy A- New Station #1 at Walnut and Charles Streets This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station at or near the intersection of Walnut and Charles streets. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of this proposed station deployment are shown in green overlays. Figure 16: Deployment Strategy "A" &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 3 Station 1 NEW 40 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. Figure 17: Strategy A Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 3 Station 1 NEW 41 Strategy A Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates only a slight improvement in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 18: Strategy "A" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "A" 98% 90% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "A" 93% 82% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for well over 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents. 42 Deployment Strategy B- New Station #1 at Sycamore and First Streets This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station at or near the intersection of N. Sycamore and E. First Streets. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of this proposed station deployment are shown in green overlays. Figure 19: Deployment Strategy "B" &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 43 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. Figure 20: Strategy B Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 44 Strategy B Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates a slight regression in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 21: Strategy "B" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "B" 95% 90% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "B" 91% 82% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand 45 As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for over 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents. Deployment Strategy C- New Station #1 on E. Fonner Park Road This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station on E. Fonner Park Road between Pleasant View Drive and Stuhr Road. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of this proposed station deployment is shown in green overlays. Figure 22: Deployment Strategy "C" &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 46 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. Figure 23: Strategy C Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 47 In the explanation of this strategy, it is important to mention that the area surrounding this potential fire station site is likely to develop with a multi-purpose entertainment center known as the “Heartland Center”. Events at this center are anticipated to draw crowds as large as 7,000 persons. Main entrances to the complex are initially expected to exit onto Fonner Park Road in the vicinity of this potential fire station site. As a result, we caution the City to consider how the development of the entrance and exit system for the complex might affect the fire station, were it to be located in this area. Clearly, several thousand people exiting the complex simultaneously could result in significant traffic congestion that would adversely impact response time from that station. To demonstrate this possible impact, we prepared a second map of the response capability of the proposed deployment, but reduced travel speeds on all road segments in the immediate four block area surrounding the proposed Fonner Park Road fire station. The map vividly shows the significantly reduced response time capability of that station through traffic congestion in just the immediate area of the station. 48 Figure 24: Deployment Strategy "C" with Area Traffic Congestion &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 We are not suggesting that the traffic congestion from the Heartland Complex would not be manageable. Indeed, many other fire departments across the country have been able to successfully deal with venues such as this, and even much larger, without 49 compromising public safety. It does, however, point out the need for extremely thorough planning if this site were chosen as part of the deployment. The City, the fire department, the police department, and other agencies both public and private will need to work together to develop an emergency traffic route plan for periods of major congestion. Strategy C Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates only a slight improvement in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 25: Strategy "C" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "C" 97% 89% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. 50 Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "C" 93% 82% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for over 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents. 51 Deployment Strategy D- Relocations of Station #1 and Station #2 This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station #1 on Bismark Road near its intersection with Plum Road. In addition, the deployment strategy would also call for eventual relocation of Station #2 to Sky Park Road near Capital Avenue East. The strategy was designed and analyzed specifically for consideration by the City in the event there were anticipation of the need to improve response times or capability at the regional airport facility and the manufacturing and industrial areas around it. This strategy should be considered if future airport service upgrades are expected that would require a fire station to be located on airport property. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of this proposed station deployment is shown in green overlays. 52 Figure 26: Deployment Strategy "D" &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 NEW Station 1 NEW Station 3 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. 53 Figure 27: Strategy D Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 NEW Station 1 NEW Station 3 Strategy D Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates little or no change in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment 54 after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 28: Strategy "D" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "D" 96% 93% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "D" 92% 85% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for over 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents. 55 Deployment Strategy E- Relocations of Station #1 at Training Site Three This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station #1 built in conjunction with a new Training Center on the proposed site #3 at Stuhr Road near its intersection with Seedling Mile Road. The strategy was designed and analyzed specifically for consideration by the City in order to conserve costs associated with site acquisition and development. This strategy should be considered if the City wishes to take advantage of having an active fire station at their fire training facility. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of this proposed station deployment is shown in green overlays. Figure 29: Deployment Strategy "E" &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station Station 3 56 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. Figure 30: Strategy E Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 57 Strategy E Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates slight degradation in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 31: Strategy "E" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "E" 92% 87% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "E" 90% 81% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for just 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents, but that performance achievement is likely to be marginal. 58 Deployment Strategy F- Relocations of Station #1 and Station #2, Retention of Old Station #2 as EMS Station This strategy would involve the abandonment of the current fire station #1 and the establishment of a new fire station #1 near the intersection of Locust Street and Stolley Park Road. In addition, the deployment strategy would also call for relocation of Fire Station #2 to the area of Sycamore Street and 5th Street. However, the strategy would involve the continued use of the old Station #2 as an EMS station, from which transport ambulance crews would be dispatched. The following figure demonstrates this deployment strategy. The six-minute response capability of fire suppression units (ambulance station excluded) for this proposed station deployment is shown in green overlays. 59 Figure 32: Deployment Strategy "F" &\ &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 EMS Station Station 2 NEW Station 1 NEW Station 3 The following map demonstrates the six-minute coverage areas of each proposed fire suppression station location overlaid on the community risk designations. This view permits the reader to visually appraise the depth of six-minute station coverages against areas of highest fire impact risk. 60 Figure 33: Strategy F Coverage and Community Risk &\ &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 EMS Station Station 2 NEW Station 1 NEW Station 3 Strategy F Projected Performance This deployment strategy demonstrates improvement in target-level service performance when compared to what would be provided by the current deployment after projected community development. Performance models for the strategy, along with comparison figures, are shown in the following tables. 61 The first table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy for the community as it exists today. The comparison figures are the current levels of service experienced by the community. Current service demand and the current street network were used in this analysis. Figure 34: Strategy "F" Performance Analysis Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Current Deployment Capability 95% 90% Strategy "F" 99% 93% Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand The next table provides the projected performance of this deployment strategy were the community to develop to the full extent discussed in previous sections of this study. The comparison figures are the levels of service projected if current deployment is continued without change (status quo). Projected service demand and a projected street network similar in nature to that which may be present if the City develops as expected were used in this analysis. Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "F" 94% 84% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand As can be seen in the table, response time performance, even after full community buildout, would be below six minutes for well over 90% of all incidents. This strategy will achieve the target objective of six minutes or less to at least 90% of the incidents. 62 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In the long-range future, upon full development and buildout of its response territory, the Grand Island City Fire Department will be able to maintain the response time performance objective adopted for the City for first-due company arrival of 6:00 or less through continued use of its existing location deployment scheme, if desired. After anticipated development, response time performance levels could be expected to degrade by approximately only 3%. The City of Grand Island can also meet the response time performance objective through the adoption of one of the deployment strategies provided in this report involving the use of new locations. The summary of six-minute response time performance projections for each strategy is shown in the figure below. Figure 35: Deployment Strategy Performance Projection Summary Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <6:00 Percent of Road Segments <6:00Status Quo at Full Future Buildout 92% 73% Strategy "A" 93% 82% Strategy "B" 91% 82% Strategy "C" 93% 82% Strategy "D" 92% 85% Strategy "E" 90% 81% Strategy "F" 94% 84% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand From the table, it can be seen that Strategy F provides the most significant projected improvement over what would exist if use of the current deployment locations were continued. Strategies A and C provide the potential for slight performance improvement, but all six deployment strategies show only small variation in projected performance. This is a good indication that the City has the flexibility to adopt any one of the adopted strategies without fear of causing significant deterioration of service levels. Each strategy could be expected to provide a first unit arrival of six minutes or less. 63 In cases such as this, it is sometimes helpful to analyze the anticipated performance of each strategy at a lower response time model. While each strategy may meet the stated performance objective of six minutes, one or more strategies may show a distinct advantage in response time performance at a lower level, such as four minutes. The following figure provides the projected performance of each strategy if a four- minute response time objective is analyzed through GIS. Figure 36: Projected Performance of All Strategies at Four Minutes Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <4:00 Percent of Road Segments <4:00Strategy "A" 81% 61% Strategy "B" 80% 61% Strategy "C" 70% 48% Strategy "D" 40% 36% Strategy "E" 69% 47% Strategy "F" 84% 58% Deployment Strategy Percent of Service Demand <4:00 Percent of Road Segments <4:00Strategy "A" 75% 54% Strategy "B" 74% 53% Strategy "C" 67% 43% Strategy "D" 43% 34% Strategy "E" 66% 43% Strategy "F" 78% 51% Performance Projection on Future Development and Service Demand Performance Projection on Current City Streets and Service Demand These figures demonstrate that Strategy D is the least desirable from a short-time response performance standpoint. Thus, it should only be considered in the event that airport development will make it necessary to locate a station on or near airport property. Strategy E is the next least desirable from a short-time response performance standpoint, but could result in much lower capital costs since the new station would be combined with the Training Center site. 64 The figures also demonstrate that Strategy F can be expected to provide the greatest response time benefit to the largest number of service users. Strategies A and B can be expected to provide a three to four percent lower performance at the four-minute level than Strategy F. The difference between the projected performances of the three strategies is reasonably minor and the City should feel comfortable making the final location decision between these strategies based on other issues unrelated to service performance such as cost, land availability, site suitability, and roadway access. 65 MAP APPENDIX GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire and EMS Services Facility and Location Study 66 02.25.05 Current Station Deployment and Response Time Capability &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 Station 3 Four Minutes •• Five Minutes •• Six Minutes •• GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 67 02.25.05 Strategy “A” Six-Minute Response Time Performance &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 3 Station 1 NEW GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 68 02.25.05 Strategy “B” Six-Minute Response Time Performance &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 69 02.25.05 Strategy “C” Six-Minute Response Time Performance &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 70 02.25.05 Strategy “D” Six-Minute Response Time Performance &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 NEW Station 1 NEW Station 3 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 71 Strategy “E” Six-Minute Response Time Performance 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 72 Strategy “F” Six-Minute Response Time Performance 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY 73 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 73 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 Fire Station Space Program The following are Architectural Space Programs for implementation of Fire Station site strategies. The programs were developed during a workshop session on December 15th, 16th, and 17th with Fire Department and City Leadership. The programs were developed through one-on-one interviews with departmental leadership, and were based on Programming Questionnaires which are included in an appendix of this report. The areas indicated for each space are based on the Space Standard Diagrams included in this section. The space programs were used in developing the concept sta- tion plans and site “fit” plans detailed in this section and which formed the basis of the site Master Plan concepts included in this report. The final programs included are: • Option 1 and 2 – Headquarters Station including Fire Administration and (5) bay Fire Station (full program included in this report) • Option 3A – Fire Administration with (2) bay satellite station (summary of space program only included in this report) • Option 3B – (5) bay Fire Station without Fire Administration (summary of space program only included in this report) • Option 4 – (3) bay Fire Station without Fire Administration (summary of space program only included in this report) Programs 1 and 2, and summary pages for 3A, 3B, and 4 follows: GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 74 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 SPACE PROGRAM SUPPORT GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE SITE REQUIREMENTS 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Support Areas Emergency Generator 1 1 1 - - - - Exterior location with screen Public Parking Stalls 12 12 12 - - - - Exterior location Staff Parking Stalls 35 35 35 - - - - Exterior location Vechile Pad 2 2 2 - - - - Exterior locations at front and back Staff Picnic Area 1 1 1 - - - - Exterior location with screening Fire Hydrant 2 2 2 - - - - Locate for training and funcitonal Subtotal, Departmental Spaces - - - Total Net SF - - - Efficiency Factor 15%- - - TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE - - - OPTION 1 AND 2GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork SPACE PROGRAM FIRE ADMINISTRATION GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE FIRE ADMINISTRATION 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Personnel Spaces O-192 Fire Chief's Office 1 1 1 192 192 192 192 O-168DT Fire Prevention Division Chief's Office 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 O-168 Training Division Chief's Office 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 O-168DT Operations Division Chief's Office 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 O-168 EMS Division Chief's Office 1 1 1 168 168 168 168 O-144 Shift Commanders' Office 1 1 1 144 144 144 144 Shared each shift O-144 EMS Shift Office 1 1 1 144 144 144 144 Shared each shift O-120 Public Safety Secretary 1 1 1 120 120 120 120 W-64 Clerical 2 2 2 64 128 128 128 W-64 Fire inspectors 3 3 3 64 192 192 192 Subtotal, Personnel Spaces 13 13 13 1,592 1,592 1,592 Departmental Spaces R-450 Public Vestibule / Lobby 1 1 1 450 450 450 450 A-196PR Plan Review Area 1 1 1 196 196 196 196 A-120A Mail / Copy Area 1 1 1 120 120 120 120 R-130 File Room 1 1 1 130 130 130 130 R-80E Fire Prevention Storage 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Adjacent to Prevention Chief's Office R-195 Break Room 1 1 1 195 195 195 195 C-280 Conference Room 1 1 1 280 280 280 280 Adjacent to Chief's Office R-171 Public toilets 1 1 1 171 171 171 171 Adjacent to Lobby / Training Room Subtotal, Departmental Spaces 1,622 1,622 1,622 Total Net SF 3,214 3,214 3,214 Efficiency Factor 20%804 804 804 TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE 4,018 4,018 4,018 OPTION 1 AND 2 GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 75 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 SPACE PROGRAM APPARATUS GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE STATION ADMINISTRATION 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Personnel Spaces R-192 Captain's Office / Base Room 1 1 1 240 240 240 240 Shared each shift W-36 EMS Workstation 1 1 1 36 36 36 36 Shared by EMS W-36 Report / Shared Workstation 1 1 1 36 36 36 36 Shared by firefighers Subtotal, Personnel Spaces 3 3 3 - 312 312 312 Departmental Spaces R-120C Station Public Entry / Lobby 1 1 1 120 120 120 120 Includes seats for waiting R-96 Work / Copy 1 1 1 96 96 96 96 Subtotal, Departmental Spaces 216 216 216 Total Net SF 528 528 528 Efficiency Factor 20%132 132 132 TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE 660 660 660 OPTION 1 AND 2GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork SPACE PROGRAM APPARATUS GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE APPARATUS 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Personnel Spaces Subtotal, Personnel Spaces - - - - - - - Departmental Spaces R-7840 Apparatus Bays 1 1 1 7,840 7,840 7,840 7,840 Include Fire Pole in space (functional or display) R-594 Turn Out 1 1 1 594 594 594 594 Turn Out Gear Maintenance 1 1 1 - - - - Included in Turn Out Wash Room 1 1 1 - - - - Included in Turn Out Eye Wash 1 1 1 - - - - Included in Turn Out R-102 Maintenance Workroom 1 1 1 102 102 102 102 R-334 SCBA Room 1 1 1 334 334 334 334 R-80E EMS Oxygen fill and storage 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Provide mezz above R-36E Delivery Vestibule 1 1 1 36 36 36 36 Adj to Ap bay R-119 EMS Storage 1 1 1 119 119 119 119 Provide mezz above R-80D EMS Clean-up Room 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Provide mezz above R-80F Liquid Storage 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Provide mezz above R-80G Arson Evidence Storage 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 Provide mezz above R-144 General Storage 1 1 1 144 144 144 144 Provide mezz above Subtotal, Departmental Spaces 9,489 9,489 9,489 Total Net SF 9,489 9,489 9,489 Efficiency Factor 10%1,054 1,054 1,054 TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE 10,543 10,543 10,543 OPTION 1 AND 2GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 76 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 SPACE PROGRAM SUPPORT GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE STAFF SUPPORT 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Staff Areas R-40 Staff Entry / Vestibule 1 1 1 40 40 40 40 R-58 Bunk Room 10 10 10 58 580 580 580 R-16 Linen closet 1 1 1 16 16 16 16 Locate adj to bunk rooms R-928 Locker Room 1 1 1 928 928 928 928 Changing / Shower 1 1 1 - - - - included in Locker Room Men's Toilet 1 1 1 - - - - included in Locker Room Women's Toilet 1 1 1 - - - - included in Locker Room Laundry 1 1 1 - - - - included in Locker Room R-384 Dayroom / Lounge 1 1 1 384 384 384 384 R-1018 Community / EOC Room 1 1 1 1,018 1,018 1,018 1,018 Provide for Teleconf closet room A/V Teleconference Storage 1 1 1 - - - - Included in Training Training Storage 1 1 1 - - - - Included in Training R-323 Kitchen 1 1 1 323 323 323 323 locate adj to training and dayroom R-545 Exersize Room 1 1 1 545 545 545 545 R-280 Library 1 1 1 280 280 280 280 Subtotal, Departmental Spaces 4,114 4,114 4,114 Total Net SF 4,114 4,114 4,114 Efficiency Factor 20%1,029 1,029 1,029 TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE 5,143 5,143 5,143 R-350 Dormatory 1 1 1 350 350 350 350 Add Closets??? OPTION 1 AND 2GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork SPACE PROGRAM SUPPORT GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE BUILDING SUPPORT 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Support Areas R-48A Janitorial Storage 2 2 2 48 96 96 96 R-42B Telephone / Data Room 2 2 2 42 84 84 84 R-500 Mechanical Room 1 1 1 500 500 500 500 R-150 Electrical Room 1 1 1 150 150 150 150 Subtotal, Departmental Spaces 830 830 830 Total Net SF 830 830 830 Efficiency Factor 15%146 146 146 TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE 976 976 976 OPTION 1 AND 2 GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 77 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 SPACE PROGRAM SUPPORT GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:REQUIRED NUMBER NET AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF SPACES NET 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE SITE REQUIREMENTS 2005 5-YR. 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Support Areas Emergency Generator 1 1 1 - - - - Exterior location with screen Public Parking Stalls 12 12 12 - - - - Exterior location Staff Parking Stalls 35 35 35 - - - - Exterior location Vechile Pad 2 2 2 - - - - Exterior locations at front and back Staff Picnic Area 1 1 1 - - - - Exterior location with screening Fire Hydrant 2 2 2 - - - - Locate for training and funcitonal Subtotal, Departmental Spaces - - - Total Net SF - - - Efficiency Factor 15%- - - TOTAL PROPOSED/PROJECTED OCCUPIABLE - - - OPTION 1 AND 2GRAND ISLAND HEADQUARTER (5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 78 SPACE PROGRAM 02.25.05 SPACE PROGRAM SUMMARY TOTALS GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:PROJECTED NUMBER OCCUPIABLE AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF STAFF NET 2005 5-YR 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE SUMMARY TOTAL 2005 5-YR 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED EXISTING Departments Fire Administration 13 13 13 4,018 4,018 4,018 Station Administration 3 3 3 510 510 510 Apparatus - - - 2,249 2,249 2,249 Staff Support - - - 1,960 1,960 1,960 Building Support - - - 435 435 435 Site Requirements - - - - - - Total Usable SF 9,172 9,172 9,172 Building Factor 15%1,619 1,619 1,619 TOTAL PROJECTED BUILDING GROSS AREA 10,790 10,790 10,790 OPTION 3A FIRE ADMINISTRATION WITH (2) PARTIAL BAY SATILITE FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork SPACE PROGRAM SUMMARY TOTALS GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:PROJECTED NUMBER OCCUPIABLE AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF STAFF NET 2005 5-YR 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE SUMMARY TOTAL 2005 5-YR 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED EXISTING Departments Station Administration 3 3 3 660 660 660 Apparatus - - - 8,943 8,943 8,943 Staff Support - - - 4,641 4,641 4,641 Building Support - - - 871 871 871 Site Requirements - - - - - - Total Usable SF 15,115 15,115 15,115 Building Factor 10%1,679 1,679 1,679 TOTAL PROJECTED BUILDING GROSS AREA 16,795 16,795 16,795 OPTION 3B(5) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork SPACE PROGRAM SUMMARY TOTALS GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMM.#: 1637.01 DATE: February 3, 2005 BKV GROUP SPACE DEPARTMENT:PROJECTED NUMBER OCCUPIABLE AREA REQUIRED SHEET OF STAFF NET 2005 5-YR 10-YR. COMMENTS CODE SUMMARY TOTAL 2005 5-YR 10-YR. UNIT PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED EXISTING Departments Station Administration 3 3 3 660 660 660 Apparatus - - - 6,166 6,166 6,166 Staff Support - - - 3,148 3,148 3,148 Building Support - - - 871 871 871 Site Requirements - - - - - - Total Usable SF 10,844 10,844 10,844 Building Factor 10%1,205 1,205 1,205 TOTAL PROJECTED BUILDING GROSS AREA 12,049 12,049 12,049 OPTION 4(3) BAY FIRE STATION (O)Office (W)Workstation (R)Room (A)Area (L)Lobby (SW)Shared Workstation (M)Millwork GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 79 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 Fire Station Space Standard Diagrams The following Architectural Space Standard Diagrams were developed during a work- shop session on December 15th, 16th, and 17th with Fire Department and City Leader- ship. The diagrams provide an overview of programmatic requirements for all spaces of the facility options, but are not intended to be exhaustive, or final space designs. The space areas indicated on each space standard are used in the Space Programs to assure the highest degree of area projections. The diagrams themselves are used in the pre- liminary concept floor plans included in this section. Space programs follow. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 80 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 81 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 82 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 83 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 84 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 85 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 86 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 87 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 88 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 89 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 90 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 91 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 92 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 93 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 94 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 95 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 96 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 97 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 98 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 99 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 100 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 101 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 102 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 103 CONCEPT STATION PLANS AND “FIT” CONCEPT SITE PLANS 02.25.05 Concept Station Plans and “Fit” Concept Site Plans The following diagrams depict preliminary plan concepts for the Plan Options 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 4 as programmed in this report. The plan diagrams are used to validate the space program, while the “Fit” site plans are used to determine site configuration and area requirements used in the assessment of the preliminary and final sites selected. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 104 CONCEPT STATION PLANS AND “FIT” CONCEPT SITE PLANS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 105 CONCEPT STATION PLANS AND “FIT” CONCEPT SITE PLANS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 106 CONCEPT STATION PLANS AND “FIT” CONCEPT SITE PLANS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 107 CONCEPT STATION PLANS AND “FIT” CONCEPT SITE PLANS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 108 SITE IDENTIFICA- TION MAPPING 02.25.05 Site Identification Mapping The map depicts the sites selected for preliminary and final site assessment based on the Fire and EMS Services Facility and Loca- tion Study included in Section 3 of this report. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 109 SITE AND INFRSTRUC- TURE CRITERIA 02.25.05 Site Infrastructure and Criteria The following diagrams depict existing infrastructural conditions, land-use and zoning for each of the sites reviewed for potential Fire Station locations. The information pro- vided formed the basis for the assessment / discussion points included for each site in the Preliminary Site Master Plan Concepts. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 110 02.25.05 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Existing Land Use <all other values> EX_ACR EX_AGCOMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site A 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Site A Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 111 02.25.05 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Existing Land Use <allothervalues> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site B 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Site B Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 112 02.25.05 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Existing Land Use <allothervalues> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site C 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Site C Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 113 02.25.05 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Existing Land Use <all othervalues> EX_ACR EX_AGCOMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site D1 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Site D1 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 114 02.25.05 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Existing Land Use <allother values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site D2 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Site D2 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 115 02.25.05 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Existing Land Use <all othervalues> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site E 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Site E Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 116 02.25.05 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Existing Land Use <allother values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site F1 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Existing Land Use Site F1 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 117 02.25.05 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Existing Land Use <allothervalues> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Site F2 0 1,100 2,200550 Feet Site F2 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 118 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05 Site Master Plan Concepts Based on the Fire and EMS Location Study, Preliminary Site Master Plan Concepts were developed for sites A1, A2, B, C, E, F1, F2, and G. Included with each option is an over- view of Fire Station Criteria and discussion points of each preliminary option. These preliminary options, with discussion points, form the basis of the Preliminary Option A1 A2 B C GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 119 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05 E F1 F2 G Site D - Preliminary site plan not considered since site is unfeasible for response time coverage and cost. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 120 02.25.05 Preliminary Site Master Plan Ranking Based on the Preliminary Site Master Plan Concepts and discussion points the fol- lowing represents the assessment of the seven sites master planned. Following site assessment, Sites F, A1, and A2 are the preferred sites, while sites B, C, E, and G are not feasible or appropriate for further consideration due to emergency response times and impact on operations of the Fire Department. PRELIMI- NARY SITE MASTER PLAN RANKING OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: Preliminary Fire Station Site Ranking Consensus Site A Site A2 Site B Site C Site E Site F Site G Access to Site 2 1 6 6 4 3 5 Response from Site 2 2 3 4 7 1 6 Anticipation of Future Fire Needs 2 2 3 4 7 1 6 Site Configuration / Flexibility 5 4 6 2 1 3 7 Expansion Potential 5 4 7 3 2 1 6 Compatibility With Surroundings 6 4 5 3 1 2 7 Support of Economic Development 4 1 2 6 5 3 7 Relationship to Other Municipal Facilities 4 2 1 7 3 5 6 Land Acquisition / Development Costs 7 6 5 2 3 4 1 Overall Project Costs 7 5 4 2 3 6 1 Anticipated Willingness of Seller 7 6 5 2 3 1 6 Totals (lower score = Higher preference) 51 37 47 41 39 30 58 Rank 6 2 5 4 3 1 7 Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 121 02.25.05 FINAL SITE MASTER PLANNING Final Site Master Planning Based on the Preliminary Site Master Plan Concepts and site ranking, Sites F, A1, and A2 are the preferred sites, with Site F (including site F1 and F2) being the recommended sites/strategy. The Master Plan options which follow are preliminary, and as a Master Plan are intended to assess site configurations, more detailed planning should occur to determine optimum building configurations, site access points, and circulation. The Master Plans provided should be considered a flexible guide for future development of design concepts. A1 A2 F1 F2 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 122 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER: City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05PROJ: Grand Island Fire Station REV#___: LOC.: Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: Option Comparisons OPTION A1 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,978,530LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $1,147,500 CONSTRUCITON COSTS $2,995,710SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $835,320 OPTION A2 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,463,904LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $696,000CONSTRUCITON COSTS $3,034,210SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $733,694 OPTIONB TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,433,324 LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $670,500CONSTRUCITON COSTS $3,023,710 SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $739,114 OPTIONC TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,039,153 LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $336,000CONSTRUCITON COSTS $2,944,210SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $758,943 OPTIONE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,195,317LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $471,250CONSTRUCITON COSTS $2,949,460SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $774,607 OPTION F (F1 AND F2)TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $4,941,829 LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $576,000CONSTRUCITON COSTS $3,467,760SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $898,069 OPTIONG TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $3,917,285 LAND ACQUISITION / DEVELOPMENT COSTS $240,000CONSTRUCITON COSTS $2,848,210SOFT COSTS / CONTINGENCIES $829,075 Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 123 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option A - With Concept Plan 1 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 2 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 150000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $32.41 $768,500 15.44%LAND ACQUISITION $760,000 15.27%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.10% SURVEY $3,500 0.07% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $126.34 $2,995,710 60.17% SITEWORK - DEMO $40,000 0.80%SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $19,500 0.39%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $200,000 4.02%BUILDING DEMOLITION $128,000 2.57% BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 52.39%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $14.99 $355,325 7.14% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $259,091 5.20%CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.13% LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.10%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $19,432 0.39%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $30,481 0.61%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,620 0.15%CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.54% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 3.16% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 2.38%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.30%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.24%FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.23% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.05% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.10%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 0.95% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $27.39 $649,373 13.04% ESTIMATING (5%)$216,458 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$432,916 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00%BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $209.97 $4,978,530 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollars and are subject to inflation and market variations. Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 124 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option A2 - With Concept Plan 2 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 1.8 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 150000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $11.75 $278,500 6.24% LAND ACQUISITION (REPLACEMENT PARKING) $270,000 6.05%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.11%SURVEY $3,500 0.08% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $127.97 $3,034,210 67.97%SITEWORK - DEMO $36,000 0.81% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $0 0.00%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $180,000 4.03%REPLACEMNET PARKING $210,000 4.70%BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 58.43%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $15.15 $359,324 8.05% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $262,364 5.88%CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.15%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.12%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $19,677 0.44%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $30,866 0.69% SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,717 0.17%CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.60% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 3.52%OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 2.66%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.34%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.27% FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.26% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.17% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.11%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 1.06% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $24.56 $582,248 13.04% ESTIMATING (5%)$194,083 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$388,166 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00%BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $188.26 $4,463,904 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 125 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option B - With Concept Plan 2 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 1.7 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 150000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $11.11 $263,500 5.94% LAND ACQUISITION $255,000 5.75%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.11%SURVEY $3,500 0.08% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $127.52 $3,023,710 68.20%SITEWORK - DEMO $34,000 0.77% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $19,500 0.44%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $170,000 3.83%BUILDING DEMOLITION $192,000 4.33%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 58.83%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $15.11 $358,233 8.08% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $261,471 5.90% CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.15%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.12%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $19,610 0.44%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $30,761 0.69%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,690 0.17% CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.61% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 3.55% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 2.67%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.34%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.27%FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.26% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.18% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.11%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 1.07% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $24.39 $578,260 13.04%ESTIMATING (5%)$192,753 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$385,506 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $186.97 $4,433,324 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 126 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option C - With Concept Plan 2 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 2.8 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 150000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $0.36 $8,500 0.21% LAND ACQUISITION $0 0.00%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.12%SURVEY $3,500 0.09% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $124.17 $2,944,210 72.89%SITEWORK - DEMO $56,000 1.39% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $0 0.00%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $280,000 6.93%BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 64.57%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $14.76 $349,975 8.66% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $254,714 6.31% CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.16%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.13%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $19,104 0.47%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $29,966 0.74%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,492 0.19% CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.67% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 3.89% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 2.94%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.37%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.30%FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.29% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.30% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.12%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 1.17% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $22.22 $526,846 13.04%ESTIMATING (5%)$175,615 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$351,231 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $170.35 $4,039,153 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 127 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option E - With Concept Plan 2 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 3.25 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 40000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $5.84 $138,500 3.30% LAND ACQUISITION $130,000 3.10%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.12%SURVEY $3,500 0.08% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $124.39 $2,949,460 70.30%SITEWORK - DEMO $16,250 0.39% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $0 0.00%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $325,000 7.75%BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 62.17%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $14.78 $350,520 8.36% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $255,160 6.08% CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.15%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.12%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $19,137 0.46%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $30,019 0.72%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,505 0.18% CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.64% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 3.75% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 2.83%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.36%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.29%FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.28% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.25% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.12%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 1.13% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $23.08 $547,215 13.04%ESTIMATING (5%)$182,405 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$364,810 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $176.94 $4,195,317 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 128 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER: City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 24,098Blended Site Option NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 24,098 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 4.8 TOTAL SQ FT 24,098 Cost Per Acre 40000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 24,098 $0.91 $22,000 0.45% LAND ACQUISITION $0 0.00% LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00% SOIL BORINGS $15,000 0.30% SURVEY $7,000 0.14% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 24,098 $143.90 $3,467,760 70.17% SITEWORK - DEMO $96,000 1.94% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $0 0.00%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $480,000 9.71%BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,891,760 58.52%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 24,098 $20.25 $487,875 9.87% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $337,255 6.82% CIVIL ENGINEERING $13,000 0.26% LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $10,400 0.21% REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $25,294 0.51% PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $35,501 0.72%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $12,425 0.25%CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$54,000 1.09% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)24,098 $9.85 $237,314 4.80% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $180,735 3.66% KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.30% LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $24,000 0.49% FF&E DESIGN FEES $17,579 0.36% TECHNOLOGY 24,098 $3.41 $82,294 1.67% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $10,000 0.20% SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $72,294 1.46% CONTINGENCY 24,098 $26.75 $644,586 13.04% ESTIMATING (5%)$214,862 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$429,724 8.70% FINANCING 24,098 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00% INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 24,098 $205.07 $4,941,829 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Site F1 and F2 - 3 Bay Stations with Plan Option 4 Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 129 02.25.05 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 23,711Site Option G - With Concept Plan 1 NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 TOTAL NEW SF 23,711 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 2 TOTAL SQ FT 23,711 Cost Per Acre 40000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 23,711 $0.36 $8,500 0.22% LAND ACQUISITION $0 0.00%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.13%SURVEY $3,500 0.09% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 23,711 $120.12 $2,848,210 72.71%SITEWORK - DEMO $40,000 1.02% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $0 0.00%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $200,000 5.11%BUILDING DEMOLITION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,608,210 66.58%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 23,711 $14.34 $340,003 8.68% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $246,554 6.29% CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.17%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.13%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $18,492 0.47%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $29,006 0.74%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $7,252 0.19% CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.69% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)23,711 $6.63 $157,199 4.01% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $118,555 3.03%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.38%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.31%FF&E DESIGN FEES $11,644 0.30% TECHNOLOGY 23,711 $2.21 $52,422 1.34% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.13%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $47,422 1.21% CONTINGENCY 23,711 $21.55 $510,950 13.04%ESTIMATING (5%)$170,317 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$340,633 8.70% FINANCING 23,711 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 23,711 $165.21 $3,917,285 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 130 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05 OWNER:City of Grand Island DATE___: 03-Feb-05 PROJ:Grand Island Fire Station REV#___:LOC.:Grand Island, Nebraska PROJ#__:1637TITLE:PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL ESTIMATE FILE#___: NEW SQ FT HQ STATION 16,795Site Option A - Without Admin NEW SQ FT BUILDING 2 0 (5) Bay Station TOTAL NEW SF 16,795 AREA TO REMAIN - Acres: 2 TOTAL SQ FT 16,795 Cost Per Acre 150000 COST/ BUILDING COST SUB PERCENTDESCRIPTIONBUILDING SF SF TOTAL TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 16,795 $60.05 $1,008,500 22.71% LAND ACQUISITION $1,000,000 22.52%LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE $0 0.00%SOIL BORINGS $5,000 0.11%SURVEY $3,500 0.08% CONSTRUCTION COSTS 16,795 $143.07 $2,402,900 54.10%SITEWORK - DEMO $40,000 0.90% SITEWORK - UTILITIES RELOCATION $19,500 0.44%SITEWORK - PAVEMENT / LANDSCAPING $200,000 4.50%BUILDING DEMOLITION $128,000 2.88%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - RENOVATION $0 0.00%BUILDING CONSTRUCTION - NEW $2,015,400 45.38%ABATEMENT ALLOWANCE $0 0.00% FEES 16,795 $17.40 $292,310 6.58% A/E DESIGN AND BIDDING FEES $207,527 4.67% CIVIL ENGINEERING $6,500 0.15%LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT $5,200 0.12%REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $15,564 0.35%PLAN REVIEW FEES & PERMITS $24,415 0.55%SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING $6,104 0.14% CITY SAC/WAC (PRELIM ALLOWANCE)$27,000 0.61% FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT (FF&E)16,795 $7.14 $119,853 2.70% OFFICE FURNITURE ALLOWANCE $83,975 1.89%KITCHEN EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $15,000 0.34%LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE $12,000 0.27%FF&E DESIGN FEES $8,878 0.20% TECHNOLOGY 16,795 $2.30 $38,590 0.87% DATA / TELEPHONE ALLOWANCE $5,000 0.11%SECURITY / VIDEO SYSTEMS $33,590 0.76% CONTINGENCY 16,795 $34.49 $579,323 13.04%ESTIMATING (5%)$193,108 4.35%PROJECT (10%)$386,215 8.70% FINANCING 16,795 $0.00 $0 0.00% BOND ISSUANCE COSTS $0 0.00%INVESTMENT EARNINGS $0 0.00% TOTAL 16,795 $264.45 $4,441,476 100.00% Fianancing costs should be verified by Bond consultant. Data/Telephone costs are allowance only - County would be responsible for data and telephone cabeling costs separately from Building construction bids. All amounts are based on December 2004 dollar Page 1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Fire Station 131 SPACE STANDARDS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 131 NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 02.25.05 Grand Island Fire Training Center Feasibility Study Education Building Summary 17-Dec-04 Proposed Area Summary Draft Description Quantity Unit Area Total Clean Areas Classrooms Capacity Presentation 50 1 2,000 2,000 Computer 20 1 900 900 Classroom 40 3 1,200 3,600 Classroom 15 0 1,900 - Adjunct Instructor Storage 1 850 850 Breakout Rooms 0 800 - Audio/Visual Storage 1 300 300 A/V Studio Room 1 400 400 A/V Production Room 1 250 250 Curriculum Storage 1 1,000 1,000 Vending 1 200 200 Lunch Room 0 16 - Subtotal 9,500 Efficiency 65%Total 14,615 Office SpacesShared Waiting Receptionist 1 150 150 Visitor/Guest Instructor Cubes 1 48 48 Conference Room (6 person)0 48 - Archive File Storage 0 48 - Central Copy and Storage 1 48 48 Library 10 48 480 Breakout Offices 10 48 480 Facility Coordinator 1 150 150 Facility Coordinator Secretary 30 10 300 Outside Users 20 10 200 Training Director 1 300 300 Instructors 1 330 330 Secretary 1 300 300 Personnel File Area (based on number of file cabinets)6 150 900 Server Room 1 150 150 Communications Closet 1 100 100 Grand Island Fire Training Coordinator 1 150 150 Secretary 0 48 - Drill Master - Fire 3 150 450 Drill Master - EMS 0 150 - Personnel File Area (based on number of file cabinets)0 150 - Communications Closet 1 80 80 1 80 80 Subtotal EfficiencyTotal 1 150 150 0 48 - Wellness Area 1 150 150 Fitness Equipment 1 150 150 Open Fitness 1 150 150 Multipurpose 1 80 80 Chair and Table Storage 1 80 80 Kitchen - Mens Locker Rooms 5,456 Womens Locker Rooms 55% Bunks 9,920 Linens Ice/Vending Student laundry 1 1,280 1,280 Lounge 1 7,000 7,000 1 375 375 Subtotal 1 1,000 1,000 Efficiency 1 2,000 2,000 Total 1 1,000 1,000 Practical Areas Capacity 12,655 Classroom (Sector)40 70% Adjunct Instructor Storage 40 18,079 Breakout Rooms 8 SCBA Storage Room Compressed Air Room 20 450 9,000 Fire Turnout and Storage 2 200 400 Fire Equipment Storage 2 100 200 Practical Application 1 100 100 Maze Area 1 1,000 1,000 Apparatus Bays (20x100' - Drive Through Bay)Student lounge 10,700 Vending Area 70% 15,286 Subtotal Efficiency Total 2 1,900 3,800 6 200 1,200 Misc. Spaces 5 200 1,000 General Storage 1 600 600 Gear Extractor 1 100 100 Receiving Area/Building Engineer 1 500 500 Commons/History Area 1 1,000 1,000 Restrooms 0 4,000 - Janitor Closet 1 600 600 Archive Storage 1 6,480 6,480 Subtotal 1 16 16 Efficiency 1 200 200 Total - Grand Total 15,496 70% 1 1 2/1/2005 11:28 PM GI Program1after crash.xls Bldg Program - Fire GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 132 NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 02.25.05 Grand Island Fire Training Center Feasibility StudyEducation Building Summary17-Dec-04 Proposed Area SummaryDraftDescriptionQuantityUnit Area TotalClean AreasClassrooms CapacityPresentation 50 1 2,000 2,000 Computer 20 1 900 900 Classroom 40 3 1,200 3,600 Classroom 15 0 1,900 - Adjunct Instructor Storage 1 850 850 Breakout Rooms 0 800 - Audio/Visual Storage 1 300 300 A/V Studio Room 1 400 400 A/V Production Room 1 250 250 Curriculum Storage 1 1,000 1,000 Vending 1 200 200 Lunch Room 0 16 - Subtotal 9,500 Efficiency 65%Total 14,615Office SpacesSharedWaiting Receptionist 1 150 150 Visitor/Guest Instructor Cubes 1 48 48 Conference Room (6 person)0 48 - Archive File Storage 0 48 - Central Copy and Storage 1 48 48 Library 10 48 480 Breakout Offices 10 48 480 Facility Coordinator 1 150 150 Facility Coordinator Secretary 30 10 300 Outside Users 20 10 200 Training Director 1 300 300 Instructors 1 330 330 Secretary 1 300 300 Personnel File Area (based on number of file cabinets)6 150 900 Server Room 1 150 150 Communications Closet 1 100 100 Grand Island FireTraining Coordinator 1 150 150 Secretary 0 48 - Drill Master - Fire 3 150 450 Drill Master - EMS 0 150 - Personnel File Area (based on number of file cabinets)0 150 - Communications Closet 1 80 80 1 80 80 Subtotal Efficiency Total 1 150 150 0 48 - Wellness Area 1 150 150 Fitness Equipment 1 150 150 Open Fitness 1 150 150 Multipurpose 1 80 80 Chair and Table Storage 1 80 80 Kitchen - Mens Locker Rooms 5,456 Womens Locker Rooms 55% Bunks 9,920 Linens Ice/Vending Student laundry 1 1,280 1,280 Lounge 1 7,000 7,000 1 375 375 Subtotal 1 1,000 1,000 Efficiency 1 2,000 2,000 Total 1 1,000 1,000 Practical Areas Capacity 12,655 Classroom (Sector)40 70% Adjunct Instructor Storage 40 18,079 Breakout Rooms 8 SCBA Storage RoomCompressed Air Room 20 450 9,000 Fire Turnout and Storage 2 200 400 Fire Equipment Storage 2 100 200 Practical Application 1 100 100 Maze Area 1 1,000 1,000 Apparatus Bays (20x100' - Drive Through Bay) Student lounge 10,700 Vending Area 70% 15,286 Subtotal EfficiencyTotal 2 1,900 3,800 6 200 1,200 Misc. Spaces 5 200 1,000 General Storage 1 600 600 Gear Extractor 1 100 100 Receiving Area/Building Engineer 1 500 500 Commons/History Area 1 1,000 1,000 Restrooms 0 4,000 - Janitor Closet 1 600 600 Archive Storage 1 6,480 6,480 Subtotal 1 16 16 Efficiency 1 200 200 Total - Grand Total 15,496 70% 1 1 2/1/2005 11:28 PM GI Program1after crash.xls Bldg Program - Fire84,323 SQ. FT.GRAND ISLAND TOTAL GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 133 NEEDS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 02.25.05 Grand Island Fire Training Center Feasibility Study 12/15/2004 Order of Magnitude of Site Development DETAILS DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT COST ITEM TOTAL SUB-TOTAL Combined Education & Training Bldg. Building- New 84,323 SF $100.00 $8,432,253 Elevator 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000 Stairway 4 EA $25,000.00 $100,000 Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment 84,323 SF $6.00 $505,935 $10,917,825 Driver Training Facilities EVOC Paving 27,000 SY $30.00 $810,000 Gravel safety perimeter- at curves & dead ends 0 SY $19.00 $0 Observation tower- allowance 1 EA $35,000.00 $35,000 Covered bleacher-allowance 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000 Light Poles (175 foot staggered)6 EA $4,000.00 $24,000 (175 foot staggered) Grade Crossing 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 Driver Control System 1 EA $30,000.00 $30,000 Traffic Light 1 EA $70,000.00 $70,000 Driving Simulator 2 EA $50,000.00 $100,000 Culvert allowance- 18"0 LF $1,000.00 $0 $1,360,800 Training Village Cold Training Building 1 LS $1,855,000.00 $1,855,000 Live Fire Simulators 2 EA $275,000.00 $550,000.00 Standpipe and Stairs 5 EA $15,000.00 $75,000.00 Lining 600 SF $50.00 $30,000.00 Structure 12000 SF $100.00 $1,200,000.00 Live Fire Training Building 1 LS $1,105,000.00 $1,105,000 Live Fire Simulators 0 EA $275,000.00 $0.00 Standpipe and Stairs 3 EA $15,000.00 $45,000.00 Lining 5000 SF $80.00 $400,000.00 Structure 4400 SF $150.00 $660,000.00 Strip Commercial Training Building 1 LS $860,000.00 $860,000 Live Fire Simulators 0 EA $275,000.00 $0.00 Standpipe and Stairs 0 EA $15,000.00 $0.00 Lining 4000 SF $80.00 $320,000.00 Structure 3600 SF $150.00 $540,000.00 Residential Building 1 LS $430,000.00 $430,000 Live Fire Simulators 0 EA $275,000.00 $0.00 Standpipe and Stairs 0 EA $15,000.00 $0.00 Lining 2000 SF $80.00 $160,000.00 Structure 1800 SF $150.00 $270,000.00 Outdoor Pavilion Facility 0 SF $75.00 $0 Incline and Flat Roof on the Ground 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000 Control/Refreshment/Restroom Building 0 SF $100.00 $0 Maintenance/Storage 16,000 SF $65.00 $1,040,000 Props Allowance 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 $6,384,000 Fire Training Burn Pad Flammable Liquids Simulator 1 EA $90,000.00 $90,000 Flange fire simulator 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 Fire tree simulator 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 Propane tank relief valve simulator 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 Aircraft SAFT Prop 0 EA $500,000.00 $0 Propane supply tank & control panel 1 EA $80,000.00 $80,000 Car Fire Simulator 1 SY $90,000.00 $90,000 $456,000 Fire Training Features Drafting Tank 35,000 gallon conc. tank w/ hood 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000 35,000gallon conc. tank Trench Simulator 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000 Collapse Simulator 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000 Urban Search and Rescue Pile 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000 Vehicle Extrication Area 50x150 280 SY $30.00 $8,400 Confined Space Simulator 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000 $610,080 Simulated Haz-Mat Training Area Donated Highway vehicle placement-allowance 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000 Liquid leak simulation allowance (no fire)1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 HAZMAT Training Simulation Area 280 SY $19.00 $5,320 Gravel Paving W/Fabric Railroad track w/ ditches & ballast 300 LF $255.00 $76,500 Donated Railcar transport & placement-allowance 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Liquid leak simulation allowance (no fire)1 EA $15,000.00 $15,000 Rail Tank Car Fire Simulation 1 EA $60,000.00 $60,000 Graded Crossing 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Gated Siding 1 EA $80,000.00 $80,000 $362,184 Water Rescue Pond Excavation 50,000 CY $2.25 $112,500 Excavation (wet soils)0 CY $5.00 $0 Rubber Liner 90,000 SF $3.00 $270,000 Pumps 2 EA $50,000.00 $100,000 Pump House 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000 24" PVC Pipe 5,000 LF $18.00 $90,000 Aerating Fountain 2 EA $20,000.00 $40,000 Concrete Pad and Vehicle on bottom 2 EA $10,000.00 $20,000 Boat ramp & Dock 1 EA $20,000.00 $20,000 Water Source Allowance 1 EA $25,000.00 $25,000 Settling Basin 6 EA $20,000.00 $120,000 $1,005,000 Contingency 20.0% Total Modifier 120.000% TOTAL $21,095,889 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 134 SITE IDENTIFICA- TION MAPPING 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 135 02.25.05 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Existing Land Use <all other values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Training Site 1 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Training Site 1 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 136 02.25.05 0 2,400 4,8001,200 Feet Existing Land Use <all other values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Parcels Training Site 2 BismarkRdE StuhrRdSLocustStSFonnerParkRdEVineStSPineStSOakStSDodgeSt CherryStSEddyStSStolleyParkRd E Hall St RoushLn PleasantViewDrSunValleyDrSycamoreStSBellwoodDrPlumStSSunsetAveE W e d g e w o o d D rBrookline Dr NebraskaAve SouthStE EugeneStSChanticleerStPhoenixAveE Clark St S KimballAveSA n n a S t W HolcombSt ClaussenAveOklahomaAveE JoehnckRdDeltaSt Santa Anita DrHallCtPhoenixCtNebraskaAveSycamoreStS We dg ewo od D r SunsetAveE SouthSt E Stolley Park RdEEddySt SOakStSHall St HallSt 0 2,400 4,8001,200 Feet Existing Land Use Parcels Training Site 2 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 137 02.25.05StuhrRdSTalcDrUSHighway30E SwiftRdE 1 s tS tE2ndStE PlumStSSeedling MileRd E G ro ffS tC h erry St S WillowStLuethDrY un d S tStuhrRd.Union R oad SutherlandSt SeedlingMileRdE Ch erry St S 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Existing Land Use <all other values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Parcels Training Site 3StuhrRdSTalcDrUSHighway30E Swift Rd E 1 s tS tE2ndStE PlumStSSeedlingMileRdE G ro ffS tCh e rry St SWillowStLuethDrY un d S tStuhrRd.Union R oad SutherlandSt SeedlingMile RdE C h erry St S 0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Training Site 3 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 138 02.25.05 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Existing Land Use <allother values> EX_ACR EX_AG COMM EX_AGStore EX_Agriculture EX_Cemetary EX_Church EX_DTCOFF EX_Fm EX_HC EX_ITC EX_LI EX_MobileHomes EX_MultiFamily1 EX_PR EX_PUBBuild EX_PUBSchool EX_SingleFamily EX_VacantCorp PAR-LIN Training Site 4 0 1,000 2,000500 Feet Training Site 4 Water_Hydrants Storm_Intake Sanitary_Manhole Water_Pipes Storm_Pipe Sanitary_Pipe Storm_Channel Parcels SITE AND INFRASTRUC- TURE CRITERIA GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 139 02.25.05 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS I GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 140 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05 II GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 141 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05III GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 142 SITE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS 02.25.05IV GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center 143 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUC- TION COSTS 02.25.05 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 143 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Training Site #1 - Central Community College and College Park Area Pros 1. Potential partnership between training center and college for providing classrooms, administration offices, conference rooms, auditorium and dormatories. 2. College could begin curricula for fire training. 3. Training center extends the college campus, creating a more prominate civic presence. 4. Adjacent land sufficient for fire training props. 5. Site is in close proximity to freeway and arterial streets, providing good access to the entire community. 6. City desires to redevelop blighted property. 7. Trees screens property from adjacent land uses, limiting the presence of the burn building to neighboring properties. 8. Site could maintain debris for USAR 9. Access to existing standing water Cons 1. Purchasing a site. 2. Rehabilitating site for development. 3. Prevailing winds to be reviewed. 4. Limited space for future expansion. 5. Longer response time to downtown. rrr Training Site #1 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 144 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Training Site #2 - Fonner Park Pros 1. Land available at no cost. 2. Opportunity to share cost of parking and EVOC with Fonner Park 3. Close proximity to freeway and arterials. 4. Infrastructure available Cons 1. Potential traffic congestion during events at Heartland of America Park. 2. Potential issues with neighbors, resulting from smoke and noise. 3. Limited buffer area 4. The build-out of Fonner Park lends itself to entertainment uses, not neccessarilly a fire training facility. Strategy “C” Six-Minute Response Time Performance &\ &\ &\ &\ Station 4 Station 2 Station 1 NEW Station 3 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 145 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Training Site #3 - Near Law Enforcement Center Pros 1. Creates civic public safety campus for Grand Island 2. Large unencumbered site 3. Water available nearby 4. May be able to utilize existing industrial buildings 6. Good response times to downtown density. 7. Minimal neighbor issues 8. Allows a fire station to be co-located at the site 9. Easy access to city administration Cons 1. Water is currently used for recreation 2. Land has to be purchased. 3. Impedes developable land to downtown 4. Limited area for future development 5. Odor from processing plant may influence visitors perception of facility 6. Traffic issue with associated police station 7. Poor access to freeway rrr Training Site #4 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 146 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Training Site #4 - Capital Avenue E Farm Land Pros 1. Large site with no foreseeable limits on future site development. 2. Utilities are available. 3. Good response times to downtown. 4. No foreseeable neighbor concerns. 5. Allows administration to be co-located at training center. 6. Potential to extend a recreational trail around the training center. Cons 1. Land has to be purchased, which could be high. 2. Would require an entire campus to be built at site 3. Cost to bring infrastructure on site. rrr Training Site #4 GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 147 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05Site No. 1 (College)Site No. 2 (Fonner Park)Site No. 3 (Public Safety)Site No. 4 (North Site)1 Land Costs 3 4 2 1 2 Neighborhood Impact 3 1 4 4 3 Infrastructure Availability 3 4 3 4 4 Response Time/Coverage 2 1 3 3 5 Co-locate Station 1 2 4 1 6 Co-locate Administration 4 4 4 4 7 Access to Freeway 4 3 2 1 8 Availabilty to Classrooms 4 2 1 1 9 High Bay 1 2 1 1 10 Facility Cost of Option 4 3 2 1 11 Growth Potential 3 1 3 4 12 Redevelopment of Sites 4 1 2 2 13 Existing Learning Infrastructure 4 1 1 1 14 EVOC - Emergency Vehicle 2 4 1 1 15 Potential State/Federal Aid 6 3 2 2 16 Local Partnering Resources 6 1 2 1 17 Willingness of Seller 3 4 2 1 Total 57 41 39 33 * Graded as 1 being acceptable to 6 being favorable Training Center Site Grading Matrix Four sites throughout Grand Island were considered for the city’s proposed fire train- ing center. Land adjacent to the community college, on the Fonner Park complex, and adjacent to the proposed police training center, and on the city’s north side were all reviewed and graded. Using a six-point scale, as shown by the following matrix, the most favorable location is Site #1 (community college and College Park area), followed closely by Site #2 (the Fonner Park complex). As shown, all four sites are suitable for the development of a high-quality fire training center. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 148 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Training Center Site Conclusion The team’s site-selection criteria included response times from the site, the site-selec- tion matrix, the ability to co-locate the new fire station, impact on neighbors, infrastruc- ture access, availability and cost of land, ability of the site to accommodate growth, and access to existing teaching infrastructure. It should be noted that a business plan was not factored into the selection of the sites. A completed business plan would provide additional information that could have an impact on the final selection. Based on these factors, the RDG team recommends Site #1 because of its proximity to the educational infrastructure available at Central Community College and College Park. Both administrations are willing to discuss partnering for facilities and operations of the facility. Both institutions have indicated that they would consider developing land they already own for the fire training center’s needs. The fire department could purchase land adjacent to both intuitions in addition to any land that may be available to them on either institution’s site. This land would be well suited for the placement of the burn building. Moreover, selection of this site would be a vehicle for cleaning a blighted area. The training center, by sharing either institution’s facilities, may have additional state and federal resources made available. The RDG team recommends Site #3 as a second choice for the training site. It offers the fire department the quickest response times to the densest part of Grand Island, allows the co-location of both the fire headquarters and fire station on the site with easy ac- cess to city hall, and will have minimal impact on its neighbors. This site will require the purchase of land, which will impact the overall cost of the project. Sites #2, located at Fonner Park, ranks second by the matrix. Because of the impact that the noise and smoke from the training center might have on neighbors and because of the inability to provide major buffering, the team feels it would be irresponsible to se- lect Fonner Park. Doing so would restrict future entertainment development that may be better suited for Fonner Park. However, it is recommended that the city discuss pos- sible cost sharing for upgrading the facility’s parking lot to accommodate an emergency vehicle operations course (EVOC) at this site and review the schedule for the facilities for possible high-bay opportunities. Site #4, on the north side of Grand Island, is in many ways the most suitable because of the industrial use of the area, availability of utility infrastructure, acreage for future growth, strong response times, and good coverage of downtown Grand Island. How- ever, it would be the most costly to develop from the standpoint of total project cost— land costs, facility development, and phasing costs. In conclusion, the above site recommendations are based on information provided to the team as well as on the team members’ background and expertise. These recom- mendations are made without benefit of a detailed business plan. We recommend that a business plan be performed prior to finalizing the selection of the site for the training center. GRAND ISLAND FIRE DEPARMENT SITE AND NEEDS STUDY Training Center Site Location Analysis 149 TRAINING CENTER SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS 02.25.05 Based on our involvement with comparable facilities, we think it is likely that a busi- ness plan would support Site #1 as the most economically and operationally viable for the City of Grand Island. Even if the main functions of the training center are located elsewhere, we recommend evaluating whether the EVOC functions can be located at Fonner Park. Item I1 #2005-58 - Approving Agreement with Grand Island Public School for Acquisition of Former Wasmer School Property Tuesday, March 01, 2005 Study Session/Special Mtg City of Grand Island Staff Contact: Doug Walker City of Grand Island City Council Council Agenda Memo From: Douglas R. Walker, City Attorney Meeting: January 11, 2005 Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of the Old Wasmer School Property; Located at 1613 West Division Street Item #’s: I-1 Presenter(s): Douglas R. Walker, City Attorney Background A public hearing was held on January 11, 2005, regarding the acquisition of the Old Wasmer School Property. City Council action must also be taken by resolution for the City of Grand Island to acquire property. Grand Island Public Schools own the property at 1613 West Division Street and have agreed to sell this property. Discussion The city has been working with the Nebraska Department of Roads on a project to widen Second Street (US Highway 30) between Grant Street and Greenwich Street. The area experiences significant ponding of storm water runoff. The City of Grand Island is interested in the old Wasmer Elementary School Site for use as a detention cell. The Grand Island Public Schools advertised for bids on November 12, 2004. The City of Grand Island submitted a bid for $180,100 on December 1, 2004. At the December 9, 2004 school board meeting, the school board members voted to accept the City of Grand Island’s bid to purchase the property. The bid must be approved by the Mayor and the City Council. There are sufficient funds in account 40015025-90005 to purchase the property. Alternatives It appears that the Council has the following alternatives concerning the issue at hand. The Council may: 1. Move to approve the purchase of the property. 2. Refer the issue to a Committee. 3. Postpone the issue to future date. 4. Take no action on the issue. Recommendation City Administration recommends that the Council approve the purchase of the Old Wasmer School property for $180,100 and pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement with the Grand Island Public Schools for the purchase. Sample Motion Move to approve the acquisition of the Old Wasmer School Property. Approved as to Form ¤ ___________ February 24, 2005 ¤ City Attorney R E S O L U T I O N 2005-58 WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005, by Resolution 2004-320, the City Council of the City of Grand Island approved the acquisition of real estate comprising all of Block Twelve (12), Charles Wasmer's Addition to the city of Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska to convert such property into a detention cell; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of such conveyance are set out in an Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA, that the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate by and between the City and Hall County School District No. 2, known as Grand Island Public Schools for the purchase of Block Twelve (12), Wasmer's Addition to the city of Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska, for the amount of $180,100 is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement on behalf of the City of Grand Island. - - - Adopted by the City Council of the City of Grand Island, Nebraska, March 8, 2005. _______________________________________ RaNae Edwards, City Clerk