Loading...
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