Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-27-1979~~o AUBURN, WA,SHTNGTON MGNDAY AUGUST 27,.__7979 2'he continued meeting of the Auburn City Council convened at 8:00 p.m. in the City of Auburn Council Cisambers. ROLL CALL COi11dCILhIPM.L31sRS l~itF'SE;NT: Councilmember Roegner, Kitchell, Craig, Larson, Fl,:tchcock, F'lechs.ig, and Lea. STAFF MLsMBtsRS PRr3'SF,'NT: Mayor Stan Kersey, Jack Bereiter, C.i..ty Attorney; Coralee McConneheL~, City Clerk; Pat Nevins, Director of Z'~ublic Works Department; Marv Seabrands, Assistant Enginee>~; Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mayor Kersey not..=d theoontinued Council meeting had been called for the .purpose crf discussing Items 3 and 4 of the Department of Public Works recommendations regarling the awarding of ~:ontract 79°12, St. Imp. 200 and L.I.D. 295. He turned the meeting aver to Jahn Lea, Chairman, Street and Engineering Committee. Lea suggested Its>m ~ be 3.iscussed first since the contract for Street Improvement 200 and L.I. r>. 295 c~~u1 d not be awarded until funding was approved . He stated .i t would reguir.e autho~iz.iny spending $25,392 in unexpended Federal Revenue .Sharing Fund and rorninc7 up wi!~h $39,608 to fund the praject. Lea asked Ken Thompson to report ari possib.Zc~ saur~:es for.• the $3.9,000. Ken Tllompsarr sta'_-ed thr>.r°c~ ware three possi.}~le sources: (1) The Street Fund for 1979 will have ~;rt Zcra.~t $40,000 Ieft. Mayox Kersey questioned if funding the project from the St_rE=<~t fund would mean starting the 1980 year with no moner~ to get things going. Thompson re~pl.ied ttre> 1979 Street Fund Budget had been based on going down to a zero balance anywaLl with the>, poss.ibil.ity of raising property tax to meet the needs for 1980. (2) The sec_~orrd ,.a~aossibl e source could be from unexpended 1979 Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Etc said `he C.i.L-y had received more than it had previously allocated. Mayor Kersey asked i.f the City ]rad received in excess of the approximately $400,000 expected. Thompson responded yes. (3) The third possible source could be the General Fund. Lea asked Thompson if Street Fund monies were used where would the City be with the Street Fund. Thompson explained it had been planned to use all of the Street Fund and. it would be dealt with in the 1980 budget by possibly raising the property taxes. The revenues which have come in are more than anticipated so there will be excess. Pat Nevins Hated in p.tanrring .his 1980 Street budget the excess in the Street Fund had already been allocated. Lea thaugPrt the ,~eve~nue Sharing Fund would be the best source. Roeyrrer qucrstion~d TZrornpson if money in the Street Fund could be used for any other purpose thrr,°r fo.r. Street Fund. Thompson stated $200,000 of the Street Fund comes from property taxes which means there is same flexibility as to how it can be used. Roegner. asked if monies from the Street Fund could be put into the General Fund. Thompson .repli.ed all of the Revenue Sharing monies could be put into the General Fund while only those monies in the Street Fund raised from property taxes could be put rota the General Fund. Roegne.r stated i.n looking at the issues involved with the budget, it :could appear funding of t..he project from Revenue Sharing would have more flexibility. Craig said he wou.Zd not .like to see the $39,000 come from the Street Fund because there are more projects than money; 22nd Street being a good example. Money from the .Street Fund is being I~eavily counted on. Also, any excess in the Street Fund is bei.ny accocrntrd forirr the .1980 budget. He felt the best source of funding would be-~ thcv Reve~nuo S~iar.incr Fur7d. 1•'1c~chsiq stated r:i gaod po.rt.ion of the Revenue Sharing Fund goes to police and fire sc;~rvices. And, :~.inrc thr~ Police and Fire Departments have added personnel, he felt it would be a sad mistake in taking it out of Revenue Sharing. He also expressed concern ]raw ma»y more o.f thcase projects were going to be aver the engineer's estimate HE= added since it had been planned to have the Street Fund at zero he saw no reason -1- 331 AtIBCIRCd, wA,StiZ'NGTC3V _ - ~_ ,~-~ --~ MONDAY., AUGUST 2%1979 not t:o us~~ :itY.rr',~t f%'ur7c3 rnr=nay. Lea anent..ionc.d thc~r'es wcz.res at lease threfY strE~c:~t projects waiting for IIAB funding and at this t.rn< tlzez=~ is notl~in<; in the hopper for Auburn. He stated the rising cast of living i.s t:lacs i;.ictge.~rt problem in estimating the projects. Flechsig asked ab:~ut thc~ additional $33,000 which Lea requested last week for changing the sub-1•iasca from a raon-~concrete to a concrete base. He said if this were a part of the total pictures tc7ri.ight it was a vital consideration. Lea stated t~lie Ci!y"::, ~~or~,>uZtart, vardner Engineers, Inc., had been asked to corrurnsnt on concrete versar_> non-concrete sub-:case. He asked Marv 5eabrands to rcpart on their G'amrnent.> . Marv Seabrarids re;~zd the 1~>tter from Gardner Engineers. They made three comments: (1) Then d_id not agree with removal of the Nonwoven Fabric from the design stating its us<s .is s.igr;if.:'carai: i.n p.r•ovifling a quality finished product which wi11 give a resonable service 1_ife. (.?.,' '['h_csit did xaot cancer. with deletion of crushed surfacing under cement concrete base J>3v~srraent. I'hr> tat:al. surfacing depth on the soils found within the Zim-its vi" th.i,s projF:ct: :>hr;i,.Icl >:zst x~e 1E:ss than one foot. (3) They chid not cancu3° with the rc~duc:ti.on c;t th;~a r~.Z.as.^ v+~ concrete from 5 to 4--1/2 sacks since 5 sacks was marginal. to M I~esyir~ ~vi.th. W Lea explained the Gt.r~=:~rrt Cvntlnittee was interested in a concrete sub-base because .it Q had beer) rr~p~trtF^d t,hL> na~c.-dfor overlaying with a concrete sub-base would be delayed Q from approx_~'mat~s:t~a .Z; ye=zrs tc~ ?5 years. At this time, however, it is felt because of fundincl _iri addition to t:he c°onsu.Ztant"s recommendations the proposal could not be Roegn~~r aslc~~d if f.he r_igkat:--of-ways and appraisals had been resolved . Lea reported not all were resolved, hocJC:ver, a firm retained by the City has been actively working with prc>per~ty c~can>>rs. ttapeful.ly, maney from UAB would be sufficient to fund this. Roogne.r a,sk=_rd .if storm drainage laced been approved. Lea replied Pat Nevins was in receipt of ? letter from. J~:ing County to the State recommending approval. However, the cantrac C,racald be awa.r•ded contingent on hydraulics approval by Kiny County. Mayar KersF~r <~sk=.:c3 fr;r c.1ar..i:firation from Ken Thompson whether the $39,000 fram Reticanue Sti3r.•ing wou.Zd bc= in October's or January"s receipts. Thompson stated it would bs from Octo1)er`:; rece.i.pts. George Hari, attoraacy, representing r'ralley Cement asked the Council if .he could have the opportunity to ,present some current data which they believe was a valid reason to iracl ude concrete. Lea respand•~c1 to Fiori he felt that information would mare appropriately presented to the Stre~>t Co,•r;.°nittc~e. tte~ thought it would serve no purpose to re-engineer the pr°oject .:.n .franc Qf the .whole Council. Fi.ori said lae wanted to present now data which would save dollars down the road. Lea asked t:hc> 5tr_,ct Conuniti~ee rnernbers what their feelings were on the matter. Craig responded ht~ fe1 t. tl'ie Council woaald have to decide if they were willing to go for approximately .60,000. He said he feat the Council should save anything they could. FJowever, th< C1ty's consultant in their professional judgement has not recommended the .proposal and t:he Caunci.l would just be redesigning the project. Hitchcock concurred. Flechsiy asJcecl C~~at: Nevins i.f' ?:he .lowest bidder met specifications. Nevins said yes. f~'lechsiq askesd ,Ja_•Jc t3c:~reite~r laow t:hca City could tla.row out the low bidder on use: of canercarte. t3c~>re.zt~sx: s~a;:d l)<:> laud asked t'at Ne>v.ins haw the concrete versus non-r:onc.rete proposal. c.amc .:abort. Ncsviras e+xpla.ine~i tl)e specifications had provided for bath un asphalt: ar c°oncrc>ic~ i.)~.sc•. However, the proposal being discussed was different than the oxiyina.l specitirrztioras cal.Ied for. Bereiter said tl2e only case Poe could recall cold was one involving Seattle an light bulbs which may rant be ,a.pp.licable to this case. However, setting specifications so rigid -2- ~ICTf31JIZN, W~'t ~111~N(~TC7V MONDAY AUGUST 27,x_ 1 X79 uc;~rtl~i hr~ a vivt~zticrri gat` then 1rew. M~~ycar~~ t~:c,.r'rc~y r~,:rkr~rt 73a~~~r~crir.~~7r~ if ~°l~zc~~ C.it;y t;ou.7cl tre .in t.x~ouble> i~t,'~ we went arZrsirrsh t:he spe~c.ific:aCionr or~ Ezdjustc:rd the~~ cearrtxact. 73frre~ite~r answFarcrd yes. Larson wondc,re~d tr:aw lcang the City had to award the bid. Nevins said by at Least t_he next Caiz.nc.i1 :meeting. Ile a1.so noted the low bidder was not in attendance. Larson thougrit maybe it could be best to go back to the Street Committee. Mayor Kersey s,~id it appeared the situation was a matter of coming up with $33,000 or crraosing trc3 alternate subrnittted by the second lowest bidder which was $123,000 snore. FZechsig stated he was opposed to raising an additional ,S33,OOO because the City ,Zoesn't have the monF~y and it would mean all the bids would have to be thrown out. It was mowed by C'Zeclasig, seconded by Craig, that $33,000 not be allocated fora .oncrete sub-.'vase on Contract 79-.Z2, St. Imp. 200 and L.I.D. 295. ROLL CALL VOTE: AZ.Z Councilrnembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED It was rnove-~d b~, fZe=cla: ig, sc~coraded .b~ Roegner, to finance Contract 79-12, St. Imp. 200 and .i;.I.D. 29>, .f.rorn tare Street Fund unexpended revenues .for 1979. Larson st~.rcr:.c~ hc~ z`_t:ouclht .it should come from Revenue Sharing because many more projects need .fund.ing. It waulci Yee easier to use Street Fund monies for tizese projects. Hitchcock concurr~=d anc~ reconunended voting against the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE;: c.ouncilrnembers FZechsig, Roegner and Kitchell voted YES. Councilmembers Lea,, Craig, Larson and Hitchcock voted NO. MOTION FAILED It was moved by FZechsig, Seconded by Hitchcock, to allocate 539,608.00 for Contract 79-12, St. 1'rnp. 200 acid L.I.D. 295, from unexpended 1979 Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. ROLL C.~I.,L VCJTE: Councilmembers FZechsig, Lea, Kitchell, Craig. Larson and Hitchcock voted YES. Councilmember Roegner voted N0. MOTION CARRI.BD It was rraoved by Lca. :ae~canded by Flechs.ig, to authorize $25,392 be txansferred fz:am rniscellaneaus st:ox~rn drai..nage projects to St. Imp. 200 and L.I.D. 295. ROLL CA£,L V02'E A1I Councilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRI.^D It was moved by Lea, seconded b_y Craig, to award Contract 79-12, St. .Imp. 200 and L.I.D. 295, street and waiver construction an Auburn Way North from 41st to North City limits to Robison Construction, Inc. on their low bid of $1,187,408.99 plus sales tax of $9,138.92 fo.r a total c7.i $Z ,196,547.914 funding: Street - UAB and one half cent gas tax plus revenue shag°ing transfer, Wafer -L.I.D. assessments plus Water/Sewer Const. fund participation, and, award of contract contingent up hydraulics approval by King County. R©LL cAr.,c, voT7a~: A11 Cnuncilmembers voted YES MOTION CARRIED The=rc being no further. businoss to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. (~ . i~ /(G STANELY KERSEY, MAYOR CORALEE A. MCCONNEHEY, CITY CLERK -3-