HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2000L CALL TO ORDER: Chair Sue Singer called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Members l~resent: Chair Sue Singer, Vice Chair Rich Wagner, Councilmember Trish Borden.
Ot_Q~resent included: Mayor Chuck Booth, Chief Russ Vandver, Chief Jim Kelly, Support
Serv. Mgr, Dave O'Dea, Plan. Dir. Paul Krauss, PW Dir. Christine Engler, Solid Waste Spec.
Sharon Conroy, Parks Dir. Dick Deal, and Secretary Jeanne Herold.
II. CONSENT:
Ordinance No. 5473: Chief Jim Kelly asked for approval of Ordinance No. 5473. An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Auburn, KC, Washington, authorizing the
acceptance of Grant Funds from funding under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants
(LLEBG) Program which grant has been approved by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Dept of Justice in the amount of forty five thousand two hundred six
dollars ($45,206.00) for the purpose of reducing crime and improving public safety as described
in the statute; providing for a local cash match in the amount of five thousand twenty-three
dollars ($5,023.00); continuing the local Law Enforcement Block Grants Trust Fund and
approving the appropriation and expenditure of the grant funds.
Chief Kelly explained that the Block Graat application is the grant money that is used for
community programs such as, Teen Late Night, Emphasis Patrol, Fourth of July, Block Watches
and various other community events. Vice Chair Wagner made a motion to approve Resolution
No. 5473. Councilmember Borden seconded the motion. Chair Singer concurred.
Resolution No. 3290: Chief Jim Kelly asked for approval of Resolution No. 3290. A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute an agreement for housing of inmates in the Yakima County Jail, between
the City of Auburn and Yakima County, Washington.
Chief Kelly explained that Correctional Facility Manager Dave O'Dea was present at the
meeting in the event that there were any specific questions related to the contract. The contract
to enter into an agreement with Yakima County is to reduce the cost of housing Auburn prisoners
outside of the Auburn Facility. The King County Facility, the RJC has an inmate fee of $137.65
which is the booking fee and approximately $64.00 per day. Yakima County has agreed to house
Auburn's inmates at the rate of $51.00 per inmate day with no booking fee. This also includes
transportation of inmates from Auburn to Yakima. However, Yakima's do not include medical
costs.
Vice Chair Wagner made a motion to approve Resolution No. 3290. Councilmember Borden
seconded the motion. Chair Singer concurred.
Chief Kelly passed out an Auburn Inmate Population graph. The graph gives an indication of the
population growth as Auburn has been experiencing it. Also, he explained that the Police Dept.
Municipal Services Committee Meeting I November 20, 2000
has been continuing to work other avenues to reduce the jail costs. They're currently consulting
with Chelan County Sheriff's office to hopefully enter into an agreement there. The electronic
home monitoring program is above maximum capacity right now. Currently there are 22
inmates on electronic home monitoring and the goal was 15.
Resolution No. 3288: Paul Krauss asked for approval of Resolution No. 3288. A Resolution to
enter into a contract with W & H Pacific for the preparation of construction plans, conduct
bidding and provide construction management to build an additional 40 aircraft hangers at
Auburn Municipal Airport.
Paul Krauss explained that as the Committee is aware, he has been talking about potentially
building additional hangars similar to those that were completed last March. Originally, the plan
was to come forward and request an additional 20, however there is a waiting list of 20 already.
The last time this was presented to Committee, it was suggested that the two remaining buildings
for a total of 40 hangars may as well be built. Mr. Krauss explained that the same design is
being considered that was used previously but, with a little refining. Mr. Krauss feels these
actually will cash flow better than the first 40. The $160,000 that was spent on earth work
obviously will not have to be spent again. Mr. Krauss explained that he'd also like to finish the
re-roofing project if the City goes ahead with the bond issue. There are two buildings lett that
need new roves and then every building will be complete.
The project would be done in two phases so that the City would have a package go out for bids to
see what kind of pre-leasing would be received. If the decision is made to go forward with the
project, at that point, based on Council determination, then the City would enter into phase fwo
of the project which is the construction management phase.
Vice Chair Wagner brought up the issue of raising rates at the Airport, especially when there is a
significantly long waiting list. He wasn't sure that he was in favor of this at this time until there
has been a run at a more aggressive rate structure. Chair Singer stated that there is also a list of
things that are being worked on to improve the Airport and once everything is done, she's also in
favor of raising rates. Discussion ensued regarding the waiting list.
Mr. Krauss explained that last year the Council approved two years of rate increases. One has
already been programmed in for next month. Vice Chair Wagner asked what percentage the rate
increase was. Mr. Krauss stated that it was an inflation adjustment built in, so was probably
about 3 or 4%. Mr. Wagner stated that he's not against expansion and believes the Airport
brings value to the community but he is against essentially subsidizing which for most people is
a hobby and for a few, is a business. Mr. Krauss stated that there is a large market demand but in
good conscience, is leafy about making a large jump in rates again.
Vice Chair Wagner stated that he would not vote for this and feels it is somewhat premature.
Councilmember Borden stated that she would like additional time and suggested this be tabled at
least until the next meeting in order to have time to think about it. Mayor Booth asked Mr.
Wagner if he'd like staffto do anything in terms of getting comparison rates. Mr. Wagner stated
that he would.
Bid Award-Airport Fencing, AIP3-53-0003-10: Paul Krauss explained that the City got a
couple of grants approved. Two grants were actually combined. The State grant and a Federal
FAA grant to cut back the trees that were causing a safety problem on the west side of the
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 2 November 20, 2000
runway. That job was finished a couple months ago. The other was to extend the security fence.
Right now anyone could gain access onto the runway from the Auburn Corporate Center. This
funding is sufficient to extend the fence line from 30th Street where it ends, down along Auburn
Corporate Center and ending near the trees. The area near the new industrial park still remains
to be fenced.
Vice Chair Wagner made a motion to approve ALP3-53-0003-10. Councilmember Trish
seconded the motion. Chair Singer concurred.
Solid Waste Consultant Agreement: Sharon Conroy explained that she was asking for
approval of the contract with Sound Resource Management for the consulting services for solid
waste. The impact to the budget for 2000 is $8,650. Ms. Conroy drew everyone's attention to
Exhibit B where she outlined the tasks that the consultant would do and in what time frame. The
first two tasks that could be done if the contract was signed is to:
Task 1: Review the Contract and Ordinances, Task 2: Rate Comparison
Alternatives Analysis Total: $8,650.
To continue with the consultant for the year 2001 Task 3 & 4 would be accomplished.
Task 3 : Decision Process: Bid versus Negotiate
Task 4: New Contract Development.
At this point, there would be a choice between Task 5 or 6. The pros and cons of bidding versus
negotiating would have already been looked at. If the procurement process is chosen, the cost
would be $6,800 for the consultant and if the negotiation process was chosen, the cost would be
about $31,000. The next step would be Task 7 and 8.
Task 7: Ordinance Revision Task 8: Rate Setting Model
At this point, the City would be ready to sign the contract and mobilize whoever signs the
contract with Auburn.
Taske 9: Annexation Franchises Negotiations (which is a follow up to work annexations to do
the negotiations for solid waste in those areas and then the minor cost for mileage. If the City
decides to go for bid on the solid waste services it's about $27,000 for next year and if the City
goes for negotiations, there would almost have to have a cost of service to go into it with an
analysis of what the City actually has here to negotiate and the cost of that would be about
$52,000.
One of the things that came up in discussions with the consultant is that there is a mobilization
period when switching from one hauling company to another. Currently the City is working with
Waste Management. If the decision is made to go with another company, there are a lot of
logistics that need to be considered. And, Waste Management would have to pull out. The
minimum that the industry usually does this, is three months.
Sharon stated that if the City goes for contract signing in June 2001, the City is going to have to
act immediately, which she thinks is a good idea and it's her understanding that the Committee
wants to move quickly also. However, a lot of variables have to be looked at, such as every other
week service versus every week service. How to mix that with recycling. If recycling is
considered, how to structure the rate between commercial and residential. Those kinds of
decisions need to be made in December ifa contract is going to be signed in June. Ms. Conroy's
feelings on this, would be to consider that because of the minimum mobilization period and
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 3 November 20, 2000
because the City has the opportunity to hire a consultant, to help get through the decision making
process, that it would be smart to extend it. She feels December 2001 would be a smart time
line.
Ms. Engler asked if there was a mobilization period for the recycling portion of the contract, as
well. Ms. Conroy explained that it depends on the type of recycling progrmn that is set up. Ifa
source separated recycling program is desired, it could be set up within a month with Waste
Management. If a co-mingle system is desired, it could be set up in six months. It depends on
who actually is providing the service and whether they have the trucks available or whether they
need to purchase/lease the equipment.
Vice Chair Wagner stated that he was hoping to get some understanding of the cost of doing
business, but that he sees that the City is going to have to cooperate with Waste Management to
find that out. He was hoping to find a consultant that was familiar with this industry and thought
a more independent view of the cost of service and for something less than $30,000. He stated
that he was a little bit disappointed in terms of what he'd hope to see. He agreed with the
mobilization time and stated that the time frame makes sense. In terms of when to sign the
contract, he thinks December is too soon to decide something this important. He'd favor some
kind of delay.
Chair Singer wondered if there was the possibility of writing the proposal with some flexibility
and assumed the City was going to bid because she hadn't heard otherwise. Ms. Engler stated
that she couldn't make that recommendation to the Committee without a lot more information.
She stated that she didn't know what's going to be best for the City or for the City's customers
until more research is done.
Vice Chair Wagner stated that he had hoped to have enough information from the consultant,
that the City could go into the bid process and be able to choose an option.
Ms. Conroy explained that if the City wants the cost of service information and wants to bid, the
consultant will do that. Ms. Engler stated that in order to support negotiations, the consultant has
to do a lot more work. Previously, Ms. Engler stated she thought she heard the Committee say,
that they really weren't interested in a cost of business analysis. Consequently, the consultant's
proposal is based on the type of work that's required to support one process or the other.
Discussion ensued regarding the process of establishing the kind of services and distribution.
Chair Singer stated that if the Committee decides ahead of time what types of services is desired,
then ask for bids. At that point, services could be picked and chosen and wondered if that was a
possiblility. Ms. Engler stated that options were a possibility. Chair Singer continued with
discusson on the flexibility.
There is some flexibility to extend the contract. Ms. Conroy stated that Waste Management is
still working with the City to use their services and they would probably be very willing to add
six more months to do that. It was Ms. Englar's recommendation that if the City decides to stay
with Waste Management and to extend the contract for another six months, that decision needs
to be made right away.
The seven year time frame issue with the annexed areas of Lea Hill was discussed briefly. Ms.
Conroy stated that she's in favor of working With Sound Resource Management because they've
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 4 November 20, 2000
done annexation work with other cities. There are some possibilities that the City can move in
sooner then seven years.
Chair Singer stated that she was in favor of a three month extension as opposed to a six month
extension. Ms. Engler stated that could be done but also stated that the Consultant has given the
advice that the 90 day mobilization period is minimum. Normal is toward six months. Chair
Singer, stated that if the City goes with a 90 day extension and should happen to stay with the
same company, there would be no problem and no interruption in service. And that would
provide the three months should the City need it and still keep it a high priority. It was
suggested to do a three month extension with an option to extend.
Councilmember Borden asked what date the Committee had to advise Waste Management that a
contract extension was desired. Ms. Engler stated that according to the contract information,
there is no such date. But, it would be to the City's advantage to negotiate an extension as soon
as possible. The contract can be terminated at any time.
It was the consensus of the Committee to invite the Consultant to the next meeting to present the
material and start interacting with the Committee members.
Vice Chair Wagner stated that he's inclined to go with the bid process rather than the negotiation
process. Chair Singer agreed.
Ms. Engler stated that all she needed at this point was for the Committee to approve the budget
adjustment and to give authorization to negotiate the extension, with a 90 day termination notice.
Vice Chair Wagner made the motion for approval of the extension. Couneilmember Borden
seconded the motion. Chair Singer concurred.
III INFORMATION/DISCUSSION: None
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00.
Submitted by:
Jeanne Herold, Secretary
NOTE FROM: Sue Singer
Please have all Agenda Items
To Jeanne by Wednesday
Afternoon preceding our regular
Meetings.
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 5 November 20, 2000