01-29-02Minutes 1 -29 -02
Reconvened meeting
MINUTES
Board of Directors Room
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
January 29, 2002
4:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in reconvened session
with Mayor Dailey presiding. The roll was called by City Clerk, Nancy Wood, with the
following Directors present: Hinton, Pugh, Stewart, Graves, Lichty, Kumpuris, Keck,
Adcock, Wyrick and Vice Mayor Cazort.
Discussion: Solid Waste Rate Study: Pubic Hearing February 5, 2002.
Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, provided the board with a packet of additional
information which was requested at the January 15th Board of Directors Meeting, some of
it related to the cost of providing multiple containers, various commercial franchise fees,
the impact and details of non - profits that were exempted from paying a fee at the landfill,
a survey of size and demographics of solid waste services from comparable cities to Little
Rock, and a summary of staff's recommendation, with the financial impact of the
recommendations. Mr. Turner stated there were a lot of things that go into rates such as
debt service of the landfill, plus other issues, and said it was very important to compare
"apples to apples ", when comparing the city's proposed rate with others. This is what
they tried to do, and the net result is that the City of Little Rock is still, with the proposal
given to the board on January 15, 2002, less than what they have perceived Waste
Management proposes. Mr. Turner stated that a proposal had been submitted from Waste
Management, not as a formal proposal, but just to make the board aware of issues they
wanted the board to be aware of. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. George Wheatly representing
Waste Management to give an explanation of the intent of the proposal they had
submitted. Mr. Wheatly proposed to continue the relationship and partnership with the
City of Little Rock, and said they were prepared to submit a formal proposal if the Board
wished. He stated the proposal was more of an information packet at this time, and it was
their opinion they could provide this service whereby the city board does not have to
have a rate increase on the present $16.95. He said this was not a power play, they were
not trying to take over the garbage business, they wanted to work with the city, and if
they continue the contract as is, for the 45% of the residences that they currently service,
it would be in their situation a win from the standpoint that it gives them more time to
prove the service improvements they have implemented since a meeting he had with
Mayor Dailey and Mr. Carney in May of 2001. Mr. Wheatly said he felt confident about
the commitments that were made to Mr. Carney and the Mayor at that time; that new
management was on board, and the service levels were going to improve, and they stand
ready to document what has happened. Mr. Wheatly stated they had come back with
adding colored plastics to the recycling program at no additional cost, and were pleased
with that, and though that was a good first step along with improving service. Mr.
Wheatly stated they are prepared to present a proposal, but don't know if they have the
ability to do so from the City's viewpoint. He commented that in comparing the rates, he
agreed with Mr. Turner that it was a complex issue, and very difficult to truly compare
"apples to apples," and said that the one part that seems to have gotten everyone's
attention was could they do this and get the material into a landfill, that covers everything
including the landfill cost, and he said the answer was yes, they could. He said it was all -
inclusive and there were no hidden costs. There was some discussion regarding the
comparisons of complaints and how those complaints were documented, City vs. Waste
Management's. Director Kumpuris asked if Waste Management's contract were
extended, and if they fell below the expected performance level, would the be willing to
have fines and or voiding the contract written into the contract. Mr. Wheatly answered
yes to the question. There was some discussion yard waste pickup. Director Kumpuris
asked Mr. Turner if the contract was extended for another year, could it be done without a
rate increase. Mr. Turner stated a rate increase was built into the 2002 Budget due to a
franchise fee to the General Fund and also some overhead charges from the Human
Resource Department to the Solid Waste Fund, so there would have to be a rate increase
to cover those items, which is approximately $1.2 million dollars. Mr. Turner stated the
other item to be aware of is, if this were extended for a year, essentially there would still
Minutes 1 -29 -02
Reconvened meeting
need to be a seven to eight month led time prior to the terminating of the contract one
way or the other. Mr. Turner said there would have to be a monthly increase in the fee
for garbage collection. Director Wyrick asked when collection of the franchise fee was
supposed to start. Mr. Turner said it would have to be approved, and that is potentially
what is being proposed. Mr. Carpenter stated it was not a franchise fee. He said the
franchise fee that was approved was for Waste Water Sanitary Sewer. Mr. Carpenter
stated this increase was for a transfer of funds from the Solid Waste Collection to the
city's General Fund to represent that aspect of the collection effort, which is damaging
various city properties. Director Kumpuris asked if legally the contract could be
extended. Mr. Carpenter stated he didn't think so, but would look at the contract again to
see if there was any language that would allow for that, but thought a pretty definite
timeframe had been set on the last RFP, and it's obvious it is a contract that has definite
value. Director Kumpuris asked for Mr. Turner and his staff to come up with some
definite options for next week. He said he felt a little too much negotiating was going on
right now. Mr. Turner asked the board to hear Mr. David Yanke of Reed, Stowe and
Yanke , the city's consultant. Director Keck asked if each board member could be
provided with a copy of the existing contract. Mr. Yanke said he only had a few brief
comments. He said in comparing "apples to apples" and that is very important in regards
to this issue, he wanted to talk about some services that are being provided by the city
right now that are not included in the $11.50 rate that Waste Management has proposed.
He said first of all, the General Fund transfer, approximately $1.6 million dollars a year
transferred from the solid Waste Utility to the General Fund, and it was incorrectly stated
in the Waste Management Proposal that the General Fund subsidizes the Solid Waste
utility, and this is not correct. He said $1.6 million goes from the Solid Waste Utility to
the General Fund, and talking dollars that is roughly $2.40 per month, per household, so
if you compare "apples to apple," then $2.40 a month needs to be added to their $11.50
figure, which pus it at $13.90. Mr. Yankee stated that the city provides a lot of additional
services that are not included in the services provided by Waste Management including
the bulky pickup, white goods collection, roll offs, dead animal collection, mosquito
spraying, the customer billing and the operation of the compost site, the Class I and the
Class 4 landfills. He said if those things are added into Waste managements proposal, the
numbers compared between the proposed rate by Little Rock, and the proposed rate by
Waste Management that are very comparable. Once similar services are compared, the
rates would be much closer than this perceived disparity of the $11.50 to the $16.35 or
the proposed rate in the $19.00 range. He said he also wanted to mention if the city
looked at contracting with Waste Management to take a portion of the city, their current
portion and haul it to their landfill, or the whole city, you have about $25 million dollars
in debt out on the current landfill and composting operation, and that debt service is
amortized into the operating costs of those facilities, and if the services are contracted out
to Waste Management they would be paid a rate plus the debt service for a landfill that
will have very little waste coming into it. The effect of outlay by the citizens and the
City of Little Rock will be much greater if the board chose the route of privatizing
collection operations for these various services and then have a landfill that is
underutilized. He said the levels or service are also important, and the City has done a
good job of providing that service where Waste Management's track record has
improved, but a concern was providing more in the way of citywide cleanups with regard
to if vacant property were cleaned up and the waste put at the street, the city crews are
able to do that with their existing staff and that is an additional service Waste
Management would need to provide which would be an additional cost. Mayor Dailey
said over the next seven days, with staff, legal staff, management, and the consultant
working on these issues, that the board would be able to entertain if there would be any
benefit in opening this up for extension or for other proposals.
Mayor Dailey asked to take care of modifications to be added to the agenda. These items
consisted of-
M-1. ORDINANCE — To amend LR Ordinance No. 18.611 (12- 18 -01) as to certain
fines for parking violations; to declare an emergency; and for other purposes.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,223 — To amend Little Rock, Ark., Resolution No. 11,217
(1- 15 -02) to correct the total amount of the contract with McGeorge Contacting
Company, Inc, and for other purposes.
0J,
,-;Z/7
oZl?
Minutes 1 -29 -02
Reconvened meeting
Director Lichty asked for a briefing on each of the listed modifications. Mr. Bob Turner,
Public Works Director, gave a brief overview of Item M -2, saying what happened when
the contract was awarded was an error in the quantities for the fabric that goes into the
bottom of the Cell. He stated he was informed after the item was passed by the board
that there was a significant error in the quantities. This resolution corrects this quantity to
amend the contract to $145,000 more. Mr. Turner said they did go back and compare the
bidders and there is no change in the bidders when this quantity is factored in, and all the
bidders were notified of the additional quantity.
There was a motion to add M -2 to the reconvened meeting by Director Keck ; seconded
by Vice Mayor Cazort, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, Item
M -2 was added to the agenda.
Mr. Turner presented the explanation of Item M -1, saying that the City had a Parking
Study that made recommendations for changes in the parking fines, among other issues,
and one of the changes was that the city charge a fine of $30.00 for unmetered timed
parking spaces. Mayor Dailey asked if that was the intent in mind for the $30.00 fee for
overtime on these meters. Mr. Turner deferred the question to Mr. Wendell Jones,
Assistant Director of Public Works. Mr. Jones stated the intent was to treat that as a
metered fine, and for some reason it ended up being treated as an unmetered space, and
wanted to treat all time zones as metered areas, and it should have been a $10.00 fine for
time zone just as it would a metered. Mayor Dailey said then, instead of an automatic
$30.00 fine for a violation in one of those timed parking zones, it would be $10.00. Mr.
Jones said this was correct. Director Graves stated that in looking at a letter received
from Cranford and Johnson that if you are at a meter longer than an hour, there is an
automatic fine, and asked if that were true? Mr. Carney answered that it would depend
on the meter amount allowed on each meter, that some meters are thirty minutes and
some are one hour meters, and some are two and four hour meters. He said if it is beyond
the particular time on the meter, then if there is a parking enforcement person in the
vicinity, then they would be fined, and it would be under the new arrangement, a $10.00
fine. Mr. Turner said the change made in the past raised the fine from $5.00 at timed
metered spaces to $10.00, and that was all recommended in the parking study that was
done and presented to the board, and was implemented in this ordinance. He said
essentially what is being talked about is changing the ordinance that was passed from the
$30.00 unmetered timed space to match the metered time period. Director Lichty
restated, this ordinance amendment that the board is being asked to approve tonight, is
one that addresses only the unmetered spaces, and the metered stays the same. Mr.
Turner said if someone parks in a handicapped space, there would not be a $10.00 fine, it
would be a $100.00 fine if the person did not have the appropriate tags. Parking at a
handicapped space, blocking an alley, things like that would warrant the higher level fine,
not $10.00. Director Lichty asked under the current ordinance as it related to metered
spaces, if the ticket is not paid, what would be the ultimate fine. Mr. Turner answered
that in 21 days it would go to $50.00. Director Lichty said this in effect makes the
unmetered consistent with the metered. Mr. Turner agreed that this was correct. Mayor
Dailey stated that right now, the ordinance as it was adopted, says if someone plugs a
meter a second time, they are eligible for a $30.00 ticket, even if they have time left on
the meter. Mr. Carpenter said, yes, but that had been in place for about twenty years.
Director Lichty stated rather than have this discussion tonight, he would move that it be
deferred and get all questions and explanations taken care off, then address this again
next week with Director Hinton seconding the motion, and by unanimous voice vote, the
board deferred the item to February 5, 2002.
Mayor Dailey advised Ms. Dee White, who had filled out a card to speak on Item M -1,
that since it was not going to be dealt with tonight, that there would be no discussion on
the item until next Tuesday night.
Vice Mayor Cazort made the motion to go into Executive Session to discuss the
performance evaluations of the City Manger and the City Attorney. Director Keck
seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the
board recessed to executive session at 5:10 PM. The meeting reconvened at 6:40 PM.
Mayor Dailey stated the board dealt with the evaluation of the City Manager at tonight's
Minutes 1 -29 -02
Reconvened meeting
meeting, and would deal with the City Attorney's at a later time, as Vice Mayor Cazort
had to leave, and the board decided that all eleven board members should be present for
the two key employees of the city government. Mayor Dailey announced that the board
gave the City Manager an A or A+ rating on his performance, personal self evaluation,
and also for the suggestions and visions for the future, forcing on issues such as
financing, marketing, Vision Little Rock, and other ways to work with the manager to
have more time to spend in policy development. He said there would be no pay increase
involved with the rating. He said consistent with other city employees, there would be no
pay increase, but are supportive of and have expressed full confidence in Mr. Carney as a
professional manager and the job he is performing for the City of Little Rock.
The remaining item for consideration was the following:
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,223 — To amend Little Rock, Ark., Resolution No. 11,217
(!- 15 -02) to correct the total amount of the contract with McGeorge Contacting
Company, Inc, and for other purposes. The resolution was read. A motion was made by
Director Adcock and seconded by Director Lichty for adoption of the resolution. By
unanimous voice vote of the board members present the resolution was adopted. (Note:
Vice Mayor Cazort did not vote on this item, as he had to leave before the item was
heard.)
Director Adcock made a motion; seconded by Director Graves to adjourn. By unanimous
voice vote of the board members present the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM.
ATTEST:
Na cy Wo d City Clerk
APPROVED:
J Dailey Mayor
4
a!a