HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-2001M ICIP SERVICES CO ITTEE NUTES
JANUARY 16, 2001
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Fred Poe called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm.
Members present: Chair Fred Poe, Vice Chair Rich Wagner, Councilmember Trish Borden.
Others present included: Mayor Chuck Booth, Plan. Dir. Paul Krauss, PW Dir. Christine
Engler, Solid Waste Spec. Sharon Conroy, Parks Dir. Dick Deal, Police Chief Jim Kelly, Cmdr.
Will Lathrop, Fire Chief Bob Johnson, A/Chief Russ Vandver, Finance Dir. Diane Supler, Water
Qual Prog. Coord., Chris Thorn, Asst Finance Dir. Shelley Coleman, Personnel Dir. Brenda
Heineman, Secretary Jeanne Herold, Guests-Jerry Hardebeck-RST Disposal, Laura Moser-Waste
Mgmt-RST, Dan Bridges-RST, Rob Van Orson-City of Federal Way, Jeff Brown-Sound
Resource Management, and Albert Abramson
II. CONSENT:
Permission to Re-Advertise C0005: Chris Thorn explained that the Street Waste Handling and
Decant Facility is a structure that the City is planning to build at the Maintenance and Operations
Facility. It will be used for de-watering and storing solids generated during maintenance of
storm facilities as well as for street sweepings. It would have an integrated site for decanting the
liquids that are generated during storm maintenance and pre-treatment prior to disposal of the
liquids to the sanitary sewer. Bids went out in October last year. The bids received were higher
then hoped and it was felt should be rejected. It was recommended to the Municipal Services
Committee and that was approved last November. Mr. Thorn was asking for permission to go
back out to re-advertise the project.
Councilmember Borden made a motion to recommend approval to re-advertise C0005. Vice
Chair Wagner seconded the motion. Chair Poe concurred.
Ordinance No. 5500: Paul Krauss asked for approval of Ordinance No. 5500. An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, amending Auburn City Code Section
12.56.045 entitled "Airport Tie Down, Hangar and Storage Rental Fees" contained in Auburn
City Code Chapter 12.56 entitled "Airport" authorizing a surcharge in addition to the tie down,
hangar and storage rental fees at the Auburn Municipal Airport for the purpose of providing
increased security.
Mr. Krauss explained that last fall there were a series of break-ins at the airport, which ultimately
in this case, were resolved when the Auburn PD caught the perpetrator. Periodically, there have
been problems with security over the years at the airport. The aircraft themselves and the
equipment on board are often quite expensive and the pilots have asked the staff to see if a
means of improving the security could be accomplished. The Auburn PD has cooperated by
circulating around the airport as often as they can but there's Still long periods of time when no
one is out there. Some private security firms have been contacted for an estimate on costs. Three
firms were contacted and it ranged from $400 to $900 per month for coming to the airport four
times a night. The pilots have indicated to staff a willingness to cover that cost. Depending on
which contractor is selected the cost would be between $2.00 and $3.00 per tie-down per hangar.
Municipal Services Conunittee Meeting I January 16, 2001
Thus, Mr. Krauss was asking for permission to raise, and in essence surcharge the rents for an
amount to cover the price of security. Mr. Krauss stated that originally $4.00 was being asked
for but he finds $3.00 is sufficient to give staff the latitude to hire the best security selected.
Consequently, the proposal would be amended. Also, a letter has been prepared to be sent to the
pilots.
Vice Chair Wagner made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 5500 for a $3.00
surcharge for security at the airport. Councilmember Borden seconded the motion. Chair Poe
concurred.
IH INFORMATION/DISCUSSION:
Solid Waste Services/Consultant Scope of Work:
Sharon Conroy advised the Committee that one of the goals of the meeting was to get a decision
from the Committee on whether Solid Waste splits the bid or negotiates and on the status of the
current contract it is due in June 2001. Along with that, the City has a Boeing contract that is set
up to negotiate by February 2001 and the City is also working with GSA, which is not due until
2004. However, these are things that need to be tied into the future contracts. Also, RST has put
together and brought a proposal for an extension, including a rate increase. Ms. Com'oy then
introduced Jeff Brown of Sound Resource Management. Mr. Brown spoke on rate comparisons
and led the Committee into discussion on bid versus negotiations.
Jeff Brown stated that Sound Resource Management had completed the Rate Comparison with a
number of other cities and an Analysis of Options for moving forward with dealing with the end
of the contract.
Rate Comparison: Mr. Brown stated that the rate comparison that was done used 2000 rates
comparing Auburn with the Cities of Bremerton, Federal Way, Olympia, Puyallup and Renton.
Seattle was excluded because it has a very complicated cost structure. A comparison was done
for the Single-Family Residential Solid Waste Collection (Table 1), the Commercial
Can/Cart/Detachable Container Solid Waste Collection/dumpsters (Table 2), Commercial
Rolloff Container Solid Waste Collection (Table 3). The memo provided to the Committee by
Mr. Brown had a cover page, which described findings and methodology and the three tables. It
shows two things of interest. One is the actual rates per the rate sheet. Secondly, in Auburn's
case, Auburn is one of the only cities that does not have curbside recycling so it's very difficult
to do a residential rate comparison. Mr. Brown explained the various service packages.
Discussion ensued.
Alternatives: Mr. Brown stated that the second task that was completed was running through
some of the alternatives. The essence of that situation is that Auburn has a contract that is
expiring on June l0th and based on Sound Resource Management's review it appears that there
are potentially three main options:
1)The option to Negotiate,
2)The option to go through a Procurement Process, and
3)The option of Municipal Collection.
Those are all options that would start June 11th. Within the Negotiation option, Auburn has
either the option to going through a formal process which includes going through a full process
service review, take a look at what the actual costs are, look at what the actual revenues are,
balance everything out and make a decision.
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 2 January 16, 2001
Once all those factors are isolated, and then the costs have to be divided into residential sector,
commercial sector, and drop box sector. At the end of that process the negotiation process can
begin. It's a formal process of going through a cost of service style negotiation process. It takes
a bit of time but it also allows for a pretty good idea of what the cost options are when getting to
a point of starting to talk about the alternatives. A more informal negotiation process is
essentially just getting a proposal, taking a look at what the costs are, looking at what other cities
are doing and accepting a package.
Procurement: On the Procurement side, the options are to either go through a Request for
Proposal process or a Request for Bid process. The RFP process allows a lot of other factors to
be taken ~into consideration. The RFB process is basically where the contract provisions and
prices are stated and the low bidder wins. Finally, the third alternative is Municipal Collections
and Sound Resource Management just included that because that is an option. All of these
options were defined specifically in the handout material.
Mr. Brown stated that the issue really comes down to the fact that the time is of the essence. On
the negotiation option the City doesn't have a lot of recourse if negotiations aren't successful.
Normally, negotiations should be entered into a year or so ahead of time of the contract expiring.
Finally, on the Municipal Option, it requires doing a bit of a feasibility study to see how it would
fit in the organization in order to make a decision and that can't be done in six months. So, from
Sound Management's perspective, Auburn has two reasonable options. One is to immediately
start on a bidding process with the understanding that there just simply isn't a lot of time to
discuss the service package and the options that would be incorporated. It would be a very tight
time line. The other alternative is to negotiate an extension. Either of those options would work.
An extension would be preferable, but it's a question of cost. If the cost is too high, Sound
Management is prepared and can do a bidding process very quickly.
Fred Poe stated that it was his understanding that Waste Management had made a proposal to
Auburn relatiYe to an extension after the last meeting to basically raise their level of participation
to 90% on all of the collections for the rest of the year. So, taking those parameters, Finance
Director Diane Supler had prepared a projection on what it would cost to do that for the balance
of the year. Mr. Poe asked Ms. Supler to talk about that.
Ms. Supler provided a handout on the Garbage Service Levels & percentages paid to Waste
Management for information for the Committee's review. She explained that at the last
Municipal Services meeting she was asked to evaluate the service levels. On attachment 1 of her
handout, Ms. Supler explained that the City is currently billing on 44 different service levels.
This represents Auburn's total billing by service level activity type. It also showed the
percentage and how it varies depending on the level of service.
On attachment 2, Ms. Supler did a month by month recap of the commission paid versus the
,proposed level of'service. Ms. Supler explained that referring to the last page of her handout, if
the City went from their current level of payment to 90%, it is a total cost of $262,000. In their
proposal they had indicated that the net was approximately $160,000. So, instituting recycling
appears to cost around $100,000.
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 3 January 16, 2001
Diane Supler stated that Finance was just asked to evaluate what it would do to revenues on a
90% basis to the solid waste utility without necessarily doing a rate increase until such time that
the City could get a new proposal. It would take $262,000 off of Auburn's bottom line as far as
net income. They would also be getting an increase in fees because they haven't received an
increase for so many years. A part of the $262,000 represents a fee increase but also a part of it
is their cost of implementing recycling.
Chair Poe stated that Jerry Hardebeck did what the Committee asked him to do and that was to
provide a proposal on a contract extension until the end of the year. Leaving open the options to
decide how to approach that.
Vice Chair Wagner stated that he was inclined to go with an RFB process. Councilmember
Borden was in agreement with Mr. Wagner. Collection and enforcement of delinquent accounts
and that there should be a procedure of stopping service was discussed. Mr. Poe stated that he
felt there needed to be some discussions regarding who does the billing and what the procedures
are regarding people that don't pay their bills. Currently, the City's Ordinance requires
mandatory service and doesn't allow pick up of a container unless it's been ordered. There are a
lot of people that are recipients of rather large bills and feels those need to be addressed and that
there's got to be a better way to enforce payment.
Councilmember Borden asked Mr. Brown how long it would take to put a bid package together.
Mr. Brown stated that there would be quite a long list of service alternatives that would have to
be considered and issues that need to be resolved. Lastly, there are annexations to be considered,
probably at the next meeting or shortly thereafter in order to get the package together. And that
would be without an extension. With an extension, there are two or three months to work
through the issues.
Mr. Poe stated that the Committee seems to be leaning toward going out for bid and wished to
discuss the contract extension. He feels that whatever choice is made, enough time needs to be
taken to ensure time to discuss things and go through all the complex issues properly.
Public Works Director Christine Engler offered a summary. It's been since 1968 that the City
has really looked at understanding what it requires in the way of garbage collection and disposal
service. Recycling is an important concept that needs to be included in the package. The new
annexed area is an issue and a bigger issue is who should do the billing. Ms. Engler's
understanding is that if the hauler does the billing and collection, then the City's utility ceases to
exist. If the City's utility ceases to exist there are peripheral issues that would need to be
considered and dealt with. It's more complex then it might appear on the surface. Ms. Engler
recommended to the Committee that the City buy at least the flexibility of more time.
Vice Chair Wagner made a motion'for approval of an extension per the January 5t~ letter.
Councilmember Borden seconded the motion. Chair Poe concurred.
Mr. Poe asked if the Committee wanted to make the decision at this time, as to whether to go
with the Bid Process versus the Proposal process or wait until the next meeting. Mr. Brown
stated that he wanted to point out that the next work project would be an issues paper where
about 15 or 20 main issues that need to be decided including billing responsibilities will be
addressed. Mr. Poe felt that the Committee should go through those 15-20 issues before going
on and making a decision.
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 4 January 16, 2001
State Wetland Banking Program: Paul Krauss explained that Wetland Banking is basically an
informational item. He further explained that over the years discussion as transpired about
embarking on a wetland-banking program to the city and the idea is a great one. Auburn
certainly has wetland resources, which certainly have properties that Mr. Krauss would like to
have developed that have isolated wetlands that could be filled. In fact, Auburn has gone with
wetland brokering that should work pretty well for Auburn. Starting with the Emerald Downs
Wetland Program which was regarded as being innovative at the time. Deals have also been
brokered on City property or approved wetland mitigation.
The State DOE has been preparing Wetland Banking Program Rules for the last year or two. Mr.
Krauss attended a program that DOE gave on the rules that are going to be adopted.
Unfortunately, the program is so bureaucratic and cumbersome that Mr. Krauss not only doesn't
see Auburn ever doing it but doesn't see the private sector doing it either. In essence they took
every agency that's involved with wetland protection, kept them in the loop and added a new one
that combines all those same agencies plus the tribe.
Based upon the new rules, Mr. Krauss recommended that Aubum drop that and keep advocating
the program that Auburn had been doing. Mr. Krauss stated that if the City comes into property
because of acquiring it for one reason or another, that Auburn look to continue to market those
properties for wetland mitigation for properties for development within Auburn. Whether it is
Auburn's own public works projects, airport, or parks improvement projects, street projects or
private sector development.
Mayor Booth had some concerns regarding liability and responsibility and asked Ms. Engler to
address that. Ms. Engler stated that she was not prepared to expand on this issue but stated that
this is a complex issue and Mr. Krauss' approach does give the City the flexibility to meet the
City's needs. She feels that Mr. Krauss' approach has taken the City places that have been good
for everyone concerned.
Staffing & Level of Service:
Chief Jim Kelly addressed the Committee and stated that he wanted them to know that he was
not present to lobby for additional officers. His intent was to inform the Committee. The issue
is the growth of the city and the annexations that are being undertaken and the level of service
that the Auburn Police Department provides to it's citizens and some concerns that were
generated by Chief Kelly and the command staff of the police department in reviewing where the
population growth is taking the city and how that could impact the level of service.
Level of Service: Auburn's level of service from a law enforcement perspective, generally
speaking, if you're a citizen of Auburn and you dial 9-1-1 and request the presence of a police
officer, regardless of the issue or matter, the Police Department has staffing available that
responds to that call and that citizen gets a commissioned officer upon request. The Police
Department also maintains a very quick and favorable response time for the priority one calls for
services which are the most serious requests for police presence and that remains to be under
four minutes. That meets the level of expectation and meets the needs of the citizens.
Chief Kelly passed out graphs on "The Auburn Police Staff Analysis Projections" and an
"Officer and Workload Projections Based on Population" and explained those. The handouts
denote projections and historical data. The reason that Chief Kelly was bringing this
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 5 January 16, 2001
information to the Committee was because of the growth that Auburn is experiencing. He
explained that in the year 2001, Auburn has the authorized strength of 81 commissioned officers
and at the end of 2001, if the population increases as projected, the citizen and officer ratio goes
to 1.78. That's a significant difference between 1.78 and 1.93 and where it's impacted in the
level of service. The administrative staff is working on strategies regarding how to meet this
increased level of service given the officer per citizen ratio.
Chief Kelly stated that he brought this to the Committee's attention because when the level of
service changes it could be significant and therefore might hear from citizens regarding the
length of time for the police to respond, the types of calls that the police would respond to, the
change in the service that the police provides, and a change in deployment. Those are all
changes that can attract the attention of citizens.
Again, this is informational only and Chief Kelly wanted the Committee to be aware of what the
projections look like and if those do materialize then there would be changes. Chief Kelly has
some strategies and the Command Staff is working on developing some actual action plans and
he is going to have to be making some decisions. Chief Kelly stated that he would be available
to answer any questions. He has graphs and charts available. Deployment can be addressed if
anyone is interested in those issues. Just about any data and information can be supplied.
Discussion ensued.
Mr. Wagner brought up the issue of the "Lease Law. The last time this was address and the
Ordinance on file was from 1985. There was no mention of impounding. Because there is no
lease law, dogs running loose are not picked up. It was discussed briefly and Mr. Wagner stated
that he would like to re-visit this issue.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 PM.
Submitted by:
Jeanne Herold, Secretary
Municipal Services Committee Meeting 6 January 16, 2001