Arnold eyes community grant money for fire engine, street paving

Street paving and a new fire engine are two uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds approved by Arnold Council.

Council held its first required hearing to gather citizen input on uses for a federal allocation of $305,473, which, after subtracting $54,985 for redevelopment salaries and administration and $25,000 for the annual loan payment for the Third Avenue redevelopment project, leaves $225,488 for the city to use.

With the fire chiefs of both volunteer companies in attendance, Chris O’Leath, the department’s public relations officer, outlined to council the urgent need for a major contribution to purchase a replacement for its 28-year-old fire engine.

“What we would like to see is a commitment from the city for an allocation of $300,000 to $400,000 for the chassis of that engine,” he said.

O’Leath acknowledged that is a hefty financial request but said the cost of a new engine will be around $750,000. By comparison, he said, the current engine, which went into service brand-new in June 1994, cost a total of $237,000.

He said council has to act sooner rather than later to replace the 28-year-old apparatus housed at Arnold Volunteer Fire Company No. 2. It is one of two fire-fighting apparatus owned by the city along with the aerial ladder truck at fire company No. 1.

The firefighters have worked hard to keep the engine in operating condition over the years, which itself is an expensive proposition.

“We’ve replaced the pump; we’ve replaced the deck gun,” O’Leath said. “There’s a lot of money that I think a lot of people don’t realize is needed to keep that truck moving.”

He said replacing the pump cost the department $65,000 and a typical oil change costs about $450. Considering the engine’s age, O’Leath said, it is hard to predict how long it will be until something goes wrong with it.

Councilman George Hawdon agreed.

“It would be hard to budget annually for the repairs on this,” Hawdon said. “You just can’t project these kinds of repairs. They are just really expensive.”

O’Leath said there is no capital equipment fund the city can draw from for the fire equipment.

“We were telling them (city officials) 10 years ago that they needed to start putting money aside for this, but the can kept getting kicked down the road,” he said.

While fire department officials considered trying to borrow the funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 108 Program, the city already has an outstanding loan under the program.

That was for $330,000 in 2007 to pay for part of the $1 million program to acquire and demolish blighted structures in the 1300 block of Third Avenue, according to Rick Rayburg, city redevelopment director. Rayburg said the city has been paying that off from its annual CDBG allocation at a rate of $25,000 per year and has about $100,000 still owed on it.

Hawdon suggested, and Councilman Phillip McKinley concurred, that it might be more feasible for the city to pay off that loan using current CDBG funds and then take out a new loan for the entire $750,000 cost of the fire engine.

Rayburg said he is not sure that could be done, but he would investigate and have the information by the time of the second CDBG hearing when council next meets on July 12.

The timing for all of that to come together likely would be delayed as O’Leath said the manufacturer’s current lead time to build an engine is 18 to 36 months. As for the funding, Rayburg said last year’s CDBG funding came in about a week ago, so it is likely the 2022 funds won’t get to the city until next June.

Meanwhile, council agreed to allocate $115,000 in the 2022 funds for the fire equipment and $110,000 for paving projects suggested by city residents.

One is for repaving three blocks of Riverside Drive, which city engineer Mark Gera estimated to cost about $80,000. The second paving project, if the funding allows, would be for Constitution Boulevard from North Street to McCandless; no cost estimate was given for that.

Referring to the two uses, Rayburg said: “That would be a nice, clean (CDBG) program. They actually want you to do fewer projects.”

Tom Yerace is a freelance writer.