Loading...
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