02-05-02MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
February 5, 2002
6:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session with
Mayor Daily Presiding. The roll was called by City Clerk Nancy Wood, with the
following Directors Present: Hinton, Pugh, Stewart, Graves, Keck, Adcock, Wyrick,
Kumpuris, Lichty, and Vice Mayor Cazort
The invocation was given by Director Adcock, which was followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
With a quorum present, Mayor Dailey declared the Board of Directors in session and the
proceedings of the meeting are recorded as follows:
Mayor Dailey asked the board to consider modifications to the agenda as listed: A
motion was made by Director Keck to make the listed modifications. The motion was
seconded by Vice Mayor Cazort; by unanimous voice vote of the board members present,
the modifications were made.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,229 — Authorizing the purchase of a tract of property
adjacent to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Park; to authorize the Mayor and
Board of Directors to execute any necessary documents to affect this purchase; and for
other purposes.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,230 — To amend Section 1 of Little Rock, Arkansas
Resolutions No. 11,147 and No. 11,148 (October 16, 2001) to move $77,341 of
Workforce Investment Act Funds from the Adult Dislocated Workers Subcontract to the
Adult Underemployed subcontract; and for other purposes.
M -3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,231— Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract
with the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas on behalf of the University for
Medical Sciences for Women's Evening Outpatient Treatment Services in an amount not
to exceed $173,000; and for other purposes.
Mayor Dailey asked Police Chief Johnson to come to the podium, and then read the
following resolution in its entirety.
M -4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,224 — To affirm the citations for Officer Jack David
Cooper and Officer Johnny Lee Gravette to receive The Medal of Valor from the Little
Rock Police Department for conspicuous bravery displayed in the presence of a risk to
life. A motion was made by Vice Mayor Cazort to adopt the resolution; seconded by
Director Keck, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the
resolution was adopted.
Police Chief Lawrence Johnson was asked to pass the resolution on to the department.
Chief Johnson thanked the board for continued support and for the resolution. He
personally thanked the Mayor for the visit they had with Jack Cooper's family and said
he thought it was extremely important to show that the elected officials of the city were
there to show support and condolences for what took place. Chief Johnson stated that
above all, he thought Officer Jack Cooper's death was a reminder to us all of how
precious life is and certainly gives us more to reflect upon since September 11. He stated
that police officers and firemen put their lives on the line each and every day so that we
can enjoy the freedoms this great county has to offer. In addition, he thanked all those
who have called, sent flowers, and thank you notes of condolences to the police officers
in the City of Little Rock. He stated this was a tragedy not only for the loss of a police
officer but for the community as well.
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, presented City Flood Plain Accreditation. Mr.
Turner stated the City of Little Rock has been apart of the Floodplain Management
Program since the early eighties and has also been a part of what is called a Community
Rating System since 1992. He said this rates each community as to how they administer
and protect the floodplains in their communities. Each community starts off, when the
have a Flood Plain Program with a rating of a ten. He said Little Rock was a ten from
1992 until 1998. A rating of a 9 was achieved by adding some education components to
the Flood Plain Management Program and additional staff to address some of the issues,
and as a result of the 9 rating the citizens of the community were able to save 5% on their
insurance premium. In October the city received a rating of an 8, and as a result the
citizens will be able to save a collective $25,000. Mr. Turner stated this rating was
something to be proud of. He said the lowest number across America so far is a 4, and
that was the goal, to eventually have a rate of 4. Mr. Turner presented mayor Dailey with
a plaque with the current 8 rating, saying that in a year or so, a rating of 7 could be
obtained.
Director Wyrick asked Mr. Carpenter to explain Item 4 which was listed on the Consent
Agenda. Mr. Carpenter explained that he Commissioners of the District because of
development in the area believed that reassessment was appropriate in order to assure
more intense uses would be assessed appropriately, and they went through that process,
which has now been completed, and the state statues require that the reassessments be
brought before the Board of Directors for its approval to assure it was done in the right
fashion. He said he spoke with David Menz, attorney for the Improvement District,
today about the item, and it was Mr. Menz's belief that because of certain commercial
developments and office developments in the area, the reassessment will end up resulting
in certain residential customers having to pay a lower amount for the sewer improvement
assessments because the commercial and office users will end up paying a greater amount
than when they actually purchase their property.
CONSENT AGENDA (1 -5 and Items M -1, M -2, and M -3.)
1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,225 - Of support for the Midtown Neighborhood Plan.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,226 - To set the date of public hearing for February 19, 2001
on a petition to abandon and vacate Jonesboro Drive right of way between Zoo Drive
and Monroe Drive in Memorial Park Addition, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,227 - Declaring the intent of the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas to reimburse itself for Capital Expenditures from the proceeds of Short Term
Financing Obligations of the City; and prescribing other matters relating thereto.
4. MOTION - To set the a date of Public Hearing for February 19, 2002 on the
reassessment of local Sewer Improvement District No. 147 of Little Rock, Arkansas,
filed in the City Clerk's Office January 18, 2002.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 11,228 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with Teresa Lockhart for property located at 3101 Marshall Street as part of the Tornado
Disaster Rebuild Targeted Neighborhood Enhancement Plan in the amount of $11,700.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,229 — Authorizing the purchase of a tract of property
adjacent to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Park; to authorize the Mayor and
Board of Directors to execute any necessary documents to affect this purchase; and for
other purposes.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,230 — To amend Section 1 of Little Rock, Arkansas
Resolutions No. 11,147 and No. 11,148 (October 16, 2002) to move $77,341 of
Workforce Investment Act Funds from the Adult Dislocated Workers Subcontract to the
Adult Underemployed subcontract; and for other purposes.
M -3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,231— Authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract
with the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas on behalf of the University for
Medical Sciences for Women's Evening Outpatient Treatment Services in an amount not
to exceed $173,000; and for other purposes.
The consent agenda was read to include modifications. A motion was made by Director
Adcock made a motion; with Vice mayor Cazort seconding, to adopt the Consent
Agenda. With a unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the Consent
Agenda was adopted.
Citizens Communication was the next item on the agenda. Ms. Jeanette Wagner, 35
Wingate Drive, Andy Stepka, 10 Wingate Drive, Mr. Terry Patterson, 7 Wingate Drive,
spoke on the traffic problem on Wingate Drive, which is located northwest of Markham
;tom
and Mississippi Street. They stated that recently the city traffic division changed the
traffic light located at Markham and Mississippi Streets to move traffic more quickly
along Markham Street. Motorist can no longer make a left hand turn going north on
Mississippi onto Markham Street or have a protected light to turn left from Mississippi on
to Markham going south. They stated their previously quite neighborhood had taken the
brunt of this decision, as motorist have quickly learned to cut through their neighborhood,
making it a major route through their neighborhood, making it unsafe for the children,
joggers, walkers, etc. They stated they were present tonight as a collective group to tell
the board that the traffic light change is now an unbearable situation. They asked the city
to review the traffic division's decision to change the traffic light at Mississippi and
Markham. They left a petition with the board that had 91 signatures of residents in the
Wingate Neighborhood, which was more than 94% of the households in Wingate, and
they presented 110 signatures from surrounding neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Cazort
stated that since the change had been made at Markham and Mississippi, he had more
complaints on that change of lights than any other traffic signal in the city. He said it was
not just complaints form the citizens of Wingate, but from everyone who travels up and
down Mississippi. He said that while the change may have improved the traffic flow on
Markham, it has pretty well destroyed it on Mississippi. He stated he believed traffic
engineering needs to go back and make the change on the light to where each side of
Mississippi works on its on before the other side goes through. He said the time of the
light on Markham could be lengthened to help the flow there, but allowing both sides of
Mississippi to flow at the same time is not working. He asked staff to work with the
Wingate citizens as they had some ideas. Mayor Dailey asked Mr. Carney what would be
reasonable time to come back to the board, working with the neighborhood to see what
potentially could be a solution. Mr. Carney stated he and the Vice Mayor had discussed
this issue just a few days ago, and felt before the week is over he could have some
solution or recommendation. Director Keck stated there are other sections in the City
where the left hand turn option has been taken away and stated he had been in discussion
with Mr. Turner and Mr. Carney primarily regarding another intersection on Markham at
Bowman, where people now in order to avoid the lack of a left turn signal, are cutting
thorough the parking lot at the Blockbuster, Mardels shopping center and taking their
chances going that route. He felt that staff need to take an overall look at the strategy of
eliminating some of the left turns while improvement may be made in some of the traffic
flow, in these two incidences on Markham it may be creating several other problems.
Director Adcock brought it to the attention of Mr. Carney that where John Barrow runs
into Brookridge, if Wingate's problems are solved, then this needs to be looked at also
because those people have been complaining about this over the last several months and
have not gotten any relief. It is the same problem where the left hand turn was cancelled
and now everyone is going through the neighborhood. Mr. Sherman Housley, 9010
Cloverhill Road, Ms. Mollie Irwin, 507 Deerbrook Road, spoke on the traffic light issue
citing danger to the children at Henderson School, the problem of getting in and out of
the neighborhood, and asked the board to look into getting a light at Mayflower and
Barrow Road to aleve the problem. Ms. Irwin also paid tribute to the police officers that
had been out working radar in the area. Ms. Irwin also asked if the meeting with the
school district had taken place yet, and if so would like a report of that meeting. Mayor
Dailey announced that he and Mr. Carney had met with Dr. Ken James, Little Rock
School District, and he had assured them the district would look into the school situation
and would let he and Mr. Carney know something in terms of any participation, either in
infrastructure, street alignment, that they may be able to participate in. Ms. Dee White,
stated her group had met with some members of the Little Rock Fire Department , and
they had told of the need for a thermal imaging camera. Ms White announced she had
tickets to a vintage fashion show they were doing to benefit the fire department. She
announced it would be held on the 16'" of February from 7AM to 1OPM and would be
presented by Vintage Fashion by Grand Finale, featured at the Cafe De'Artiste in the
Heights on Kavanaugh, and if anyone would like to reserve a ticket, call 661 -9242, or call
her at 584 -2099 and she would reserve a ticket, or if anyone wanted to spend a minimal
donation of $5.00 tonight she had several tickets available. Ms. White stated the cheapest
thermal imaging camera they had been able to locate cost $10,000 and that this this was
their goal over the next year to involve a lot of young people so they could do something
they could feel good about, especially in this important time, to show the firemen as
much appreciation as possible. Mr. Don Darnell, 7007 E. Wakefield Drive, spoke
regarding a charge on everyone's water bill that goes into a fund which builds up to $1.6
million dollars a year and then transferred to the General Fund. He stated that when
something goes into the General Fund, citizens really don't know where it goes from
there. He stated that this $1.6 million dollar figure just keeps jumping up, and the annual
stipend to pay on the bond issue for the Clinton Library site acquisition is $1.3 million, so
he said that citizens knew where $1.3 million from some source is coming out of the
General Fund because every year $1.3 million is transferred to the General Fund from the
Parks and Recreation Fund to replace money from the Parks and Recreation Fund for
money that was used for the bond issue on the Clinton Library. He said hypothetically it
could be part of this $1.6 million dollars, and if that were to be the case, then every
month each water customers would be paying about $1.94 toward the Clinton Library.
.-;Za3
Mayor Dailey stated that on the point relative to taking money and putting it in the Parks
Department to pay this, asked Mr. Carpenter to clarify this, as it has been an issue of legal
contest and the city's position has been upheld. Mr. Carpenter clarified the issue by
saying it is not quite as simple as people like to make it. The theory is that if there is a
million dollars that goes into the revenue bond issue that paid for the park properties that
will now house the library and museum for President Clinton, that means it is being taken
out of Parks. Those arguments failed to realize the parks budget is $10 million dollars
and if they get $6 million dollars in user fees or $2 million dollars or no dollars in user
fees, their budget is $10 million dollars and it doesn't change based upon the user fees.
Therefore pledging the user fees to the bond issue, which is allowed by the State
Constitution because the people voted for it, is perfectly legal.
Director Lichty made a motion to add Item 16 and 17 to the Grouped Items. Director
Keck seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members present,
the items were added to the list of Grouped Items.
Grouped Items: 6 -17
6. ORDINANCE NO. 18,634 - Z- 3789 -H — Granting a waiver of the requirement to
comply at this time with landscape and screening requirements for two wireless
communication facility locations owned by Cingular Wireless, LLC; to set certain
conditions for these sites; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes.
7. ORDINANCE NO. 18,635 - Z -7119 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development
and establishing a Planned Office District titled Superior Federal Bank at the Ranch
Short Form PD -O located at the northeast corner of Ranch Drive and Cantrell Road in
the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes,
0 no. Staff recommends approval.
8. ORDINANCE NO. 18,636 - Z -7116 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development
and establishing a Planned Residential District titled Smith Short Form PD -R located at
401 South Martin Street in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
9. ORDINANCE NO. 18,637 - Z -7105 - Approving a Planned Zoning Development
and establishing a Planned Commercial District titled Stewart — Short Form PCD
located at 4200 John Barrow Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other
purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 18,638 - Z- 6757 -A - Approving a Planned Zoning Development
and establishing a Planned Residential District titled Hobby — Short Form PRD located
at 12100 Heinke Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes.
Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 18,639 - S -1332 — Granting a variance from various lot
development standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas providing for a variance to allow a pipe -stem lot with an increase in the
maximum allowable depth of a pipe -stem lot for Hickory Pointe Addition — preliminary
plat located east of the intersection of Rahling Road and Charleston Lane. Planning
Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
12. ORDINANCE NO. 18,640 - Z- 3292 -F — Approving modification to a Planned
Zoning District and providing for the establishment of a Planned Zoning Development
titled Chenal Plaza Lot 2 Revised PCD, and providing for variances to allow lots
without public street frontage and a reduced standard for the minimum width of a service
easement located approximately 500 Feet south of West Markham Street on Atkins
Road, in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, amending Ordinance No.
18,272, and the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and for other
purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
13. ORDINANCE NO. 18,641 - Z- 3875 -B — Providing a modification to a Planned
Zoning District and providing for the establishment of a Planned Zoning Development
titled Green Short — Form Revised PCD, located at 12825 I -30, in the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, amending Ordinance No. 18,495 and the Official
Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, and for other purposes. Planning Commission 11
yes, 0 no. Staff recommends approval.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 18,642 - Z -6041, BP #96 -004 - Amending Chapter 30 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a deferral of
sections 30 -43; 30 -47; 30 -48; and 30 -281 for Fuller and Son, Inc., located at 8924
Gardner Road, Little Rock, Arkansas. Staff recommends approval.
15. ORDINANCE NO. 18,643 - Z -6041 - Amending Chapter 31 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Little Rock Arkansas, providing for a deferral of Master Street
Plan Sidewalk Construction for Fuller and Son, Inc. located at 8924 Gardner Road,
Little Rock, Arkansas. Staff recommends approval.
4
aaY
16. ORDINANCE NO. 18,644 — To amend Little Rock, Arkansas Ordinance No.
18,611 (December 18, 200 1) as to certain fines for parking violations; to declare an
emergency; and for other purposes. (Deferred from January 29, 2002).
17. ORDINANCE NO. 18,645 - Z -7118 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development
and establishing a Planned Industrial District titled Jones Street LLC — Short Form
PID located at the northwest corner of West 8th Street and Jones Street in the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 11 yes, 0 no. Staff
recommends approval.
Items 6 — 17 were consider Grouped Items and were read the first time. The rules were
suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the ordinances by a unanimous
voice vote of the board members present being two - thirds in number. The ordinances
were read the second and third time, and by unanimous voice vote of the board members
present, the ordinances and emergency clauses were passed.
18. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE To amend Section 28 -28 of the Little Rock
City Code of Ordinances (Rev. 1988), providing for a schedule of Garbage Collection
Fees as set out herein; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes. Deferred to
February 19. Mayor Dailey declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Carney stated staff
members had met with representatives of Waste Management three different times since
last Tuesday and have continued to look at information provided by Waste Management
as well as the city's own data. He recommended to the board to focus on the key policy
principle of this issue. He said it is a tough issue, and there are four key policy areas that
should be uppermost in the boards mind as this goes forward. He said one consideration
was providing a consistent quality service related to waste collection for the city's
approximately 55,000 customers. The second policy issue was that this service must be
provided in a consistent and cost efficient method. The third policy issue related to the
legal parameters such as the contract documents, legal issues related to state statute, and
other things that must be adhered to. The final issue being because of the nature of this
service and the mood and concern of the country on any environmental issue, there are
federal and state regulations, and other considerations related to the environment that the
city must be mindful of when moving forward. Mr. Carney suggested that during the
citizen input portion of the discussion and the presentations by the Waste Management
group and city staff, and at the conclusion of the meeting tonight, suggested that there be
a motion to, after hearing the facts and discussion, table the issue until two weeks from
tonight, as there is more homework the staff needed to do because of issues tonight
related to the outstanding bonds the city has issued in the past. Mr. Carney announced
that Waste Management, through newspaper advertising and other methods, has
announced a plan, and it seemed appropriate for them to present the plan. Mr. Roger
Lawrence, 10 Freecourt Lane, the Arkansas Division Vice President of Waste
Management, stated they put the advertisements in the newspaper because they felt this
was one of the most important decisions that would be coming before the board in quite a
while. He said it has an impact on the business they provide and more importantly on the
cost effectiveness of the program in place currently. The efficiency and price the
residents have to pay for this service is very important. Mr. Lawrence introduced Dr.
John Shellnut, 10 Ridgehaven Ct., with the University of Arkansas, who was present to
give his spin on what is the issue before the board. Dr. Shellnut stated the landfill cost
difference of the city and that of the Pulaski County landfill is one of the main reasons for
the high rate charged to the citizens of Little Rock, a rate that is one of the highest in the
State of Arkansas and among the highest in the South. He said the board is considering
taking over all solid waste collection responsibilities for the city and eliminate the private
contract provider. Dr. Shellnut stated the report for Reed Stow and Yanke effectively
paints a picture of rapidly rising costs and rate increase to the citizens of Little Rock. He
stated it derives this bleak outlook for residential rates from a combination of the
following factors: 1.) New debt issuance to cover equipment purchases of $1.4 million
dollars an expanding duplicated cost to duplicate the service now provided by Waste
Management under the current contract; 2.) A new regressive tax upon the citizens of
Little Rock to supplement the General Fund identified as Inter -fund transfers and
overhead; 3.) Miscellaneous service costs. Options to cut services to the consumer are
discussed at length in the Yanke Study. The cuts include the elimination of bulky items
and white goods which are essentially old appliances, from the regular monthly fee,
elimination of free services to other city departments and non - profit organizations and
potential implementation of a variable rate plan. He stated these services are included in
the projections but the suggestion was made to cut them in the future. He sated the
factual evidence points away from the Solid Waste Division on these key
issues /questions. The options of cutting services and discrimination among rate payers
amount to diversions to cover for the future of rapidly rising costs, rising debt and
chronic inefficiencies. He stated the consulting study by Yanke included a number of
erroneous assumptions: 1.) It is unlikely that non - profit groups and cash customers will
elect to continue using the city landfill when faced with the full rate, and an
uncompetitive rate. The tonnage assumptions and fees for these groups are factored in
the financial analysis. 2.) Maintenance costs to duplicate the service currently performed
.aaS
by Waste Management are probably under- estimated, while the equipment costs are
inflated. He gave the example of the cost estimates for the purchase of 10 side loading
trucks by the city to replace the eight trucks used by Waste Management, and one of the
eight trucks is used by Waste Management as a back -up vehicle, so it would make that
figure ten versus seven. In addition, 34 new employees are factored in to replace the
seventeen employees used for Waste Management to accomplish the same service. The
addition of another service route in FY05 is not warranted given the limited growth in
households in the Yanke assumptions; 3). The Yanke report's recommendations to
increase tonnages at the city landfill, given the fixed costs of the facility, are erroneous.
The Yanke report makes no attempt to evaluate the competitive environment in Central
Arkansas, nor does it include the expected demand response to rapidly rising disposal
rates. The resulting rate shock would drive away tonnage, not increase it, and the
residential users would have no choice. He said this does not make economic sense in
light of the fact that contracted rates for use of the facility are already uncompetitive. He
said it should also be pointed out that location is not a special advantage in this case since
contracted waste is hauled to the Little Rock area from as far away as Hot Springs
County and Garland County at much lower costs and prices than the local experience for
the citizens of Little Rock. He stated the implication is that more rate increase will ensue
as a result of this overly optimistic assumption. He said the consulting study by Yanke
fails to make a case for rate increase and service consolidation away from the private
contractor for the following reasons: 1. There is no consideration for the rate history, for
the rate environment as clues to the true options facing the city board and the citizens. 2
The study helps to document the inefficiencies of the Solid Waste Division of the city but
concludes the opposite case. That removing the private contractor will lead to greater
cost savings and efficiency. 3. The Yanke cost approach to rate making has very little to
do with what is efficient and a great deal to do with what will raise rates to the residential
customers. It does not consider the alternative options that currently benefit other local
governments in Central Arkansas, nor does it inquire into the inefficiencies that is
currently plaguing the Solid Waste Division. 4. The Yanke study failed to account for
any negative impact for new debt issuance on overall city debt ratings and the impact on
debt repayment costs in general. The consulting study depicts a case of new debt
accumulation that coincides with new and significant Inter -fund transfers to support the
General Fund. He stated the city board has been presented an opportunity to limit the
spread of cost overruns and inefficiencies that started in 1993 with the opening of the
city's Class 1 Landfill. Today the central question is whether the board will spread the
financial inefficiencies from the landfill operation to the rest of the solid waste operations
of city services. He said the main implications of the Yanke study are as follows: 1.
Will the city use a series of rate increases for solid waste disposal oven the next several
years as a new tax on the city residents that has very little to do with efficiency, quality of
service or the fundamentals of garbage collection at all? 2. Is the city prepared to spread
the inefficiencies built into the landfill operation to all other aspects of solid waste
services, while raising the debt load and the rate burden on residents? He said there are
some clearly defined options available to the city board to improve service response to
the city while lowering the cost to residential ratepayers. Dr. Shellnut stated he had
reviewed these options while assessing the rates and services enjoyed by other residential
customers in Central Arkansas. He stated the reason there is the opportunity to lower
rates and improve the service is that the private provider has not been given the chance to
demonstrate these efficiencies to the fullest extent by contract. He invited the board to
talk to other local officials about their experience with public private partnerships that
fully utilize the efficiencies of Waste Management Services. Regarding the needs for
revenue contributions to the General Fund, his advise was to find another way to benefit
overall city finances, not though this costly approach. He said there is a better option and
it can retire debt faster, save money and can contribute an equivalent benefit to overall
city finances without the rate increases. Director Adcock asked Dr. Shellnut to provide
the board with a copy of his analysis. Director Lichty stated after hearing Dr. Shellnut's
presentation, he wanted to make sure the same level of service was being compared, and
asked what assurances there were that if the contract was bid and they won the bid, that
they would not have increases as time passes. Mr. Lawrence stated that the rate increases
that Waste Management has given to the city is averaging about eleven cents a year for
the last couple of years. He said if you look at the difference of the increase of cost the
city has overall experienced, it has been much greater, so the contract would provide the
only way for them to have rate increases, and he said he had given the Mayor and each
board member a list of things that Waste Management would do, and it did include all of
curbside collection, yard waste, bulky waste, curbside recycling, and all disposal
associated with that, all for $11.50. He stated that currently they don't do the bulky
waste by contract. He said the proposal he presented was turnkey, and included
everything; debt, equipment, cell construction, closure /post closure, state fees, personnel
fees, for $11.50. Director Lichty stated that the Waste Management contract could not be
legally extended, which leaves the city with only one other option, and that is if, this were
opened up again, it would have to be through a bid process, which other contractors
would also submit proposals. Mr. Carney stated that was correct. Director Lichty asked
what the timeframe would be to implement that sort of process, if that is the route the
n
040Vp
board wished to take? Mr. Carney stated it would take some time, and there isn't a lot of
time. He stated that the Waste Management contract ends on September l 1`h. He stated
specifications would be developed, and then offer it for bid. The bids would be reviewed
and staff would make recommendations to the board. The award winner would then need
to gear up in terms of equipment to handle this, and there isn't a lot of time to do that if
this is what the board desires. Director Lichty stated he found it hard to believe there
could be that much disparity between these two providers, and looked forward to seeing
the explanation, and if the board chose to look at alternatives, the sooner the criteria is
established to include everything, because if the city is going to get out of this business,
they need to get out of it, or if they are going to get in, to get in it. Director Kumpuris
asked Dr. Shellnut about his rate comparison, asking if their rates included all the things
provided by Little Rock. Dr. Shellnut said they tried to compare apples to apples by
looking at the components. There was brief discussion on the variables in the rate
differences. There were four citizens present to speak on the rate issue, Ms. Phyllis
Caruth, 1114 Pulaski, Reverend Roderick Torrence, 1007 S. Victory, stated they
would like to wait until the issue comes back in two weeks. Mr. Ernest Edwards, 2815
Broadway, stated he was confused about the issue at this point, but did not want his rates
to go up, and would be back in two weeks. Mr. Don Darnell, 7007 E. Wakefield, spoke
regarding the inequity of the collection system as it is now, saying he felt it an injustice
for one citizen who has one small bag of garbage each week as opposed to the customer
who has large quantities to pick up each week. He said he was opposed because this
would just be a flat rate and not take the amounts of garage into consideration. He said
he thought the city should look into some sort of a variable rate system for those who use
more of the services and produce more waste than those who use less and recycle. He
suggested as the cost goes up for those who are producing the most they normally pay
more attention to recycling, so there is an incentive if a person has to pay eight times as
much as someone who produces eight times less, they may start putting some of that stuff
in the recycling bins.
Mr. Carney objected to the fact that the city had not had an opportunity to speak on this
issue. Mayor Dailey apologized, saying he thought staff was going to respond in two
weeks, but that Mr. Carney was right, and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Bob
Turner, Public Works Director, stated two weeks ago he told the board this issue was
complicated at best, confusing at worst, and unfortunately it is confusing. Mr. Turner
stated there is no decrease in the level of service the city is proposing. There is no
increase in the landfill scale rates. He stated that Waste Management had presented a
long list of things they provide. He said there is also a list of services they don't provide,
which was not used in the comparisons. He said they do not provide neighborhood roll
offs, dead animal pickup, litter control with the operations people that are funded by the
Solid Waste group. He said City employees sponsor the Parks Youth Team, funded out
of Solid Waste, mosquito spraying, and the transfer of funds to the General Fund format.
The Solid Waste transfer is used as payment for use of the city street system by the
collection system, the cost of doing billing is also included in the proposed rate. He said
in addition, they had composting, and the city has this service also, however 20% of the
compost would be given back to the citizens at no charge, and Waste Management did
not include that. He said the debt service for the landfill is there, and would not go away,
and didn't know how you could factor that out, that it has to be met. He said the city
gives free service to some non - profits and city departments and whether that is continued
is the board's decision. Mr. Turner stated all those items factor in as costs, and when you
sum total all that, and you are comparing apples to apples, the rate is the same to the
penny. Mr. Turner stated in his opinion it boils down to one thing and that is service. He
asked what was the service that had been provided to the customers by these two
agencies, the Public Works Department and Waste Management over the term of the
contracts. Mr. Turner stated that Waste Management had been doing an admirable job in
the last month or so in terms of the number of complaints. Mr. Turner said Public Works
was going to give the level of service that needs to be given. He said this was a
commitment by the employees of the city who are committed to providing good service.
Mr. Turner stated they had just received an inspection at the landfill and received Zero
(0) rating, which is perfect, and this was the second consecutive one that was perfect,
which meant they had no violations. Mr. Turner said there are only two options, one is
for the city to take over the solid waste collection totally or to put it out for bid. Mr.
Yanke stated he was going to explain how to compare apples to apples. He said it came
up last week, and they were asked to visit with Waste Management and clarify what
services they were providing and what the city is providing, what the city would still have
to provide, and a key item, is what costs will still be there for the city. The services that
would be provided by Waste Management if they took the system over the whole city for
$11.50 a month, is residential garbage collection, recycling, yard waste collection, bulky
item pickup including white goods, and disposal of it at the Waste Management landfill.
The services not included are the roll off neighborhood collection, dead animal pickup,
mosquito spraying customer billing and some other service that Mr. Turner had just
mentioned. He said that one of the key items is the General Fund transfer of $1.6 million
dollars. He said this is included in the rate they proposed. He stated there is
7
approximately $22 to $25 million dollars in existing debt service, and if services are
privatized citywide in September and the waste starts going to Waste Management's
landfill, the Class I Landfill would go from taking in about 90,000 tons a year to about
30,000 tons a year. The operating costs would remain, as they are fixed costs. The
payments will still have to be paid on the bond issues. He said they took Waste
Management's estimated cost of $11.50 a month and added back in the costs the city
would still need to incur to see where the city would be overall, and the rates with these
costs added in, were identical. There was some discussion on the fixed costs the city
would incur regardless of who provided the collection service. Mr. Yanke addressed the
newspaper article that Waste Management ran in today's paper. He said in the ad it was
quoted that if the city board approved the proposed increase to $20.35 it was a 22%
increase. He said it is important to realize the General Fund transfer that is new this year,
and last year approximately $400,000 was transferred from Solid Waste to the General
Fund, in this current year an additional $1.2 million was added, which is about $1.80 a
month increase in the rate that is not related to Solid Waste operations. He said if you
back that off and say what is the increase related to operation of the Solid Waste Utility,
it would be a 9% increase and they have not had an increase in four years, so that is less
than a 2 1/2 % increase per year in the solid waste rate. He said what you are looking at
in increases is a 9% this year, related to operations, the rate would go up 18 to 20 percent
but half is related to the increase in the General Fund transfer, not because the Solid
Waste Utility is inefficient from that standpoint. He said you are looking at about a 20%
increase over the next four years. He also commented on the additional route saying that
there are several subdivisions subject to come on line in about three years that would add
enough homes that another route would be needed. Director Lichty asked that staff come
up with an actual comparison of rates so everyone knew precisely what was being
compared. Vice Mayor Cazort asked Mr. Biles and Mr. Carney to check and see if the
two old bond issues could be rolled into the new bond issue for the life of whatever the
new cell would be and the difference in the cost for paying off one large bond rather than
paying the new one plus the two old ones, and would there be any cost savings to do that.
Mr. Carney answered that they were looking into to that with the bond counselors.
19. REPORT - City Manager's Activity Report — Mr. Carney announced that the two
offices for the Board of Directors located just outside the board room were ready for the
board to use.
20. DISCUSSION — City Attorney's Performance Evaluation. (Deferred from January
29, 2002.)
Director Keck made a motion to recess and reconvene on February 12, to go into
executive session to discuss the City Attorney's Performance Evaluation; due to the icy
roads; Director Graves seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote the motion
carried, and the meeting recessed at 9:10 PM.
ATTEST:
ity C1 7k Nancy Wood
APPROVED: �
a or Jim Dailey
a.a,7