Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-02Minutes: 5 -14 -02 Reconvened Meeting MINUTES Board of Directors Room City Hall — 500 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas May 14, 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: Directors: Hinton, Pugh, Stewart, Lichty, Kumpuris, Keck, Adcock, Wyrick. and Vice Mayor Cazort. Director Graves was absent. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,289 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations for the provision of Summer Youth Employment and Recreation Programs in Little Rock for 2002. Director Adcock asked for an explanation of the process used in selecting the applicants applying for these programs. Ms. Dorothy Nayles, Director of Community Programs, explained the current process. Director Adcock asked that once the appointments be made to the Commission on Children, Youth and Families, that one of their first tasks would be to review the process and make recommendations regarding policy and process. Director Lichty called for the vote. The resolution was read. Director Lichty made the motion to adopt the resolution, Vice Mayor Cazort seconded the motion, and by majority voice vote, the resolution was adopted. Director Adcock abstained, Director Keck voted present. Director Stewart stated that she wanted to clarify that her vote last week May 7, 2002, Board of Directors Meeting on the solid waste collection resolution was that she was voting present rather than as an abstention. Director Adcock clarified that her abstention vote should be clarified as present, also for that issue, same meeting. Mayor Dailey recognized Jeffery Biles, Boy Scout Troop 99, son of Finance Director Bob Biles, who was there to work on his Citizenship in the Community Badge. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,288 - To endorse the proposal of the Department of Public Works to provide solid waste collection services for the city; and for other purposes. Director Lichty asked if the discussion could be limited given the history of the amount of discussion that has already taken place on the subject; fifteen minutes per side. Mr. Carney stated the issue is whether the city Public Works Department should provide this service to the citizens of the city or not, and the second issue is what level of service is to be provided. Mr. Carney stated there was a memo that recently was sent to the board members that outlines four levels of service for consideration, and an additional piece of information was provided at Director Adcock's request related to an additional level of service related to the same service that is provided now. There was two -hour discussion regarding the level of service, the enhancements, what each enhancement covered and did not cover in service levels. There was discussion on how the public would be educated on the new pickup system, discussion on extra cart cost to the customer, the possibility of a one month grace period when people move, when route maps would be completed, and continuance of ally pickup in some areas of the city, and the number of people not putting all their trash in the carts under the current contract, and the educational process that would be used to educate these citizens. Director Lichty and Director Keck stated, that knowing there will be another increase in January above and beyond which ever level of service is decided upon come September 11, that the increase be integrated so there is only one increase. Mr. Biles the Finance Director stated they would have to go to the rating agencies to do this, but was sensitive to not implementing that rate until it Minutes: 5 -14 -02 Reconvened Meeting was necessary, and that would be the reason to wait until January 2003. Director Hinton asked Mr. Guy Lowes, Assistant Director, Public Works, if the board did vote to give all the collection of garbage to Public Works, if he could assure citizens that it would be done professionally, where the city could be proud of what Public Works is doing. Mr. Lowes assured the board that Public Works could and would make that guarantee. Director Hinton asked Mr. Lowes his opinion on which enhancement would best fit with what the board is asking to be provided in the collection service. Mr. Lowes stated in his opinion it would probably be Enhancement 2, which would be a $19.04 fee. Director Hinton asked if the city did take over the service, if some of the Waste Management employees applied for jobs, would they be given consideration? Mr. Lowes stated they — would go through the city selection and interview process and select the best qualified for any positions available. There was some discussion regarding using the money that would be going to the general fund to off set some the rate increase, but the idea was abandoned at this time. Mr. Carney, City Manager, explained that if this was done, the current rate for Solid Waste would be protected, but then as the budget is prepared, there would have to be a $1.2 million reduction on resources available for all general refund activities and there would be a need to look at revenue from other sources or cut other services. Director Lichty stated he felt this should be handled, if decided upon in the budget process rather than at this meeting. Director Adcock stated at some point this evening she would be making a motion for Enhancement 2 to be added, which would be at a rate of $19.04. She stated in the memo the board received earlier today, it was at a cost of $19.95. She asked to have the memo corrected to state how many more employees and vehicles would be needed, and the cost discrepancy. Mr. Lowes stated they would be adding four rear loaders, a knuckle boom and fourteen personnel to perform at Enhancement Level 2. Mr. Lowes stated the $19.04 is the correct figure. Mr. Steve Shannon, 7900 Sloan Drive, Little Rock, representing Recycling USA, spoke in opposition to the city taking over all the collection service and asked for a possible renegotiation of their contract. He said he keeps seeing a moving target on the price and what service will be provided. He said one of the things about contracting out to a vendor is you can hold them to that price. He said bid specs from 1994 and this bid were radically different. H stated he had never seen anything like this one; that it was absolutely prohibitive for prudent business people to take the risks that were spelled out in the bid document. He said the proof was that the two largest solid waste management companies in the world could not bid, and there were at least six or seven other companies that wanted to bid. He said he attended the pre -bid conference, representing his company, but was not supplied with the revisions subsequent to the pre -bid conference. He suggested that if the board did not choose to renegotiate, then put this service out for re -bid incorporating at least some of the suggestions and solutions he has spelled out. Mayor Dailey stated that the City Attorney has ruled that the city couldn't renegotiate or extend the contract, so the only way would be to start over again and have new bids if the board chooses to go this route. Mr. George Wheatley, 24 Chenal Circle, representing Waste Management, the current contractor on 45% of the cities solid waste service, spoke in opposition, stating he had been involved with this issue almost since day one. He said on behalf of his company, still desired and wanted a successful partnership with the city. He said it appears the board intends to move forward tonight, but encouraged them not to do so. He encouraged the board to consider an independent legal opinion on the matter or extending or re- negotiating the contract. He said they believe that is possible on the cities behalf. Mr. Wheatley stated a lot of thought went into their decision not to bid, saying they had several exceptions and felt if they submitted a bid with at least one exception that it would be considered a non - responsive bidder and chose not to bid. Director Wyrick asked what made them decide not to bid. Mr. Wheatley stated it was the things listed in the bid that are not part of the core business such as mosquito spraying, etc., the neighborhood roll offs that they saw could be any where from 300 to 3000 and understating this and what it costs, containers, trucks, and manpower, and the fact that material would have to be picked up around the containers, which was cost prohibitive, and could see no ceiling as to what that could cost. He said carts were another factor. He said they could provide carts, N Minutes: 5 -14 -02 Reconvened Meeting but if the people decide to change sizes, they would have to absorb that cost, and the minute they are purchased they belong to the city, and the killer blow was that this would be a two year six month contract. After two years the city could say to the contractor that we are going to provide collection services ourselves and you have six months to get out, and by the way, that at the end of six months your equipment would be passed to the city at no cost. He stated if you put all those things together, their corporate headquarters said they could not do that. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Wheatley why some of the disparities were not brought to light before they were non - responders? Mr. Wheatley answered that they attended the pre -bid conference and it lasted approximately three hours. A lot of issues, including the language of the RFP were discussed. There was going to be a response to the revised or addendum to the RFP, and that took an enormous -- amount of time. He said it was getting dangerously close to proposal submittal time, and they still had not gotten any response from issues that had been voiced at the pre -bid conference. He said he was telling his superiors in Houston and Atlanta, who are wondering where his number was for review through a pro forma. He said they finally go the list of changes, and said he was disappointed because the issues that were voiced by all the companies represented, most had been ignored, primarily Section 13, dealing with the early termination, which did not change. He said he did not understand why that had to be in a contract. He said they thought they would, in the meantime, hear from some of the board members asking them some questions. He said he finally got his numbers, and it was up to the midnight hour and he was on the phone with the group vice president in Houston. He said they discussed whether to submit a bid, and decided they could only submit a bid with exceptions, and felt it would be considered non - responsive, and decided the best thing to do was to not submit a bid. He said he didn't feel comfortable in calling board members, that being the existing vendor, that might be difficult in the RFP process. Director Adcock asked the same questions of Mr. Steve Shannon who had spoken earlier. He said he was hoping against hope there would be a level paying field, and when he realized there wasn't going to be, he was up until two -thirty the night before writing the document handed to the board tonight. He stated that Director Cazort had asked for a document such as this, and felt it was appropriate to provide this analysis information. Mr. Rick Young, representing the city employees union, spoke in favor of Public Works taking over the solid waste collection for the city, saying the Public Works Department could do the best job under the specifications of this contract. He agreed it would be cost prohibitive for any private contractor to perform the services that have been specified by the board, such as dead animal pickup, mosquito spraying, bulky items, disaster relief, etc., and this would eliminate having to layoff current employees, some with as many as thirty years service. He asked the board to endorse this proposal. Director Adcock asked what the pickup procedure would be on a few boards, such as if a person replaced a couple of boards due to termite damage? Mr. Lowes stated they would pick up that, but not where someone is remodeling a house, tearing out cabinets, etc. and has a large amount of lumber. Mr. Carney stated if the board wanted pickup of construction materials there needed to be an additional fee. Director Adcock stated she was not talking about large amounts of construction material, just small amounts, such as one or two boards in residential areas. Mr. Carney stated that the language needed to be very clear, and defined, and very specific. Director Adcock asked Mr. Bill Mann, Acting City Attorney how to phrase it. Mr. Mann stated the resolution before the board tonight is simply to endorse the proposal that the Public Works Department begin the solid waste collection. There is a specific section that talks about directing the city staff to come back with an existing rate structure and any other matters deemed necessary to fulfill the intent of this resolution. He stated if it is the will of the board for the public Works — Department to begin this process, the resolution before the board tonight should be voted on, one way of the other. If approved, then the staff would come forth with more information about price, definition of what is to be done, for what price, as ultimately an ordinance would have to be passed to set a rate. Director Adcock made a motion to have the City of Little Rock perform complete solid waste pickup for the amount of $19.04, which includes enhancement 2, and also includes a small amount of wood repair material. Director Lichty seconded the motion. Director Keck stated he would be voting against 3 Minutes: 5 -14 -02 Reconvened Meeting the resolution. He said he thought as a board, made a mistake in how the bid was requested to be prepared; the greatest mistake was in not allowing " pay as you throw" as being a part of the bid, and because of that the city has missed out on a service, his constituents were willing to pay for. The lack of response from the private sector as well as how the city submitted its proposal, the entire process being flawed, and went on to say that even though his opinion would most likely be in the minority when votes are cast, the other thing in the forefront of his mind was that he recalled when the contract was awarded seven years ago, and the havoc that was taking place in the city when the change occurred. If this resolution was not successful in passing he would be asking a second resolution be drawn up that the city work with the existing vendor and with the city to continue the existing contract for a time to be specified later. Director Kumpuris stated that seven years ago the city was looking for safety, security if one group couldn't do it, there was a fall back to the other group. He said in this period of time the city has come to understand that what is wanted for the waste disposal system is not a traditional system. He stated the neighborhood groups want roll ofs, mosquito spraying, and other services, and said the board has some culpability in this bid process being skewed in some ways because the board said what they wanted. He said he was a little chagrinned that the bid process in the end may not have been a level playing field. He said he was not sure if it was the city's fault, or the board's fault, but the board did give a list of all the things to be included in the bid, and that is what was included in the bid. He said he was going to vote for this resolution. He said the city will have control and there would not be a seven year contract and if does not work, hoped the board would come back and say it is not working, amend it, get rid of it, re -bid it, or whatever needed to be done, and it was with that understanding he could move ahead. Director Wyrick said she felt the $1.90 going into the general fund was not true garbage cost, and thought it was the city's responsibility to provide garage pickup at the lowest rate possible. She said she would not be voting for this proposal. She said she was not necessarily concerned about the city doing it, but it gave her pause that people outside the city did not bid on this. Director Lichty stated it may have been a difficult bidding process, but did not think that translated into being a flawed one. The mandate of this Board was "do everything ", bid on doing everything, and that this what the city is doing now, and in his judgment, this particular service is one best rendered by the City of Little Rock, by the municipal government for all the reasons and responsibilities that will flow back to the board if not done correctly. This gives the board the ultimate control over how the work is done. He said he had no reservation whatsoever in voting for this resolution. A vote was taken on the amendment made by Director Adcock, as stated above. The vote was recorded as follows: Directors Wyrick, Keck, and Vice Mayor Cazort voted no. Directors: Pugh, Hinton, Lichty, Stewart, Kumpuris, Adcock and Mayor Dailey voted yes. Director Graves was absent. The motion carried. The resolution was read. Director Lichty made a motion for the adoption of the resolution; Director Kumpuris seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Directors: Pugh, Hinton, Lichty, Stewart, Kumpuris, Adcock, Mayor Dailey, voted yes, Wyrick, Keck, Vice Mayor Cazort, voted no. Director Adcock announced she would be working on using the money designated for general fund to offset the rate increase. Director Adcock asked for an update on the increased wrecker fees. Mr. Carney, City Manager stated that a draft request for specifications had been sent out, and staff had received feedback with suggested changes and would be issuing the final request, which would come back to staff, and then be brought to the board with recommendations. A motion was made by Director Kumpuris; seconded by Vice Mayor Cazort to adjourn. By unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM. ATTEST: Na cy Wq d, City Clerk APPROVE: ". I 4W G, �111-11 Ji ailey, Mayor 4