No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1988 Adjourned Meeting 013 • • NOVEMBER 15, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW • 1. DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & UTILITIES (PAGE 420 -527) The City Council met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of • City Hall, Yakima, Washington. Council members.. present were Mayor Pat Berndt, Henry Beauchamp, Lynn Buchanan, Lynn Carmichael, Jerry Foy and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Staff members present were City Manager Zais, Director of Finance and Budget Hanson, Accounting Manager Wheeler and Deputy City Clerk Toney. Council member Barnett also present. City Manager Zais stated last week Council discussed capital improvement needs and the amount that had been reserved for the City Hall water distribution system, for -which,funds have been tentatively earmarked and budgeted in that fund, however, the final cost is unknown. Mr. Zais stated one of the options that might be considered is the 1/4% real estate • transfer tax which is in the Public Works Trust Fund and has been used for other Public Works. projects. He stated the current balance in this fund is approximately $275,000 estimated by year end 1989 and eligible to spend without restriction on capital improvement needs that the City may choose rather than using contingency funds. Engineering Division • Director of Engineering and Utilities, Dennis Covell, and City Engineer, Dennis Whitcher, were present to respond to Council's questions regarding the Engineering Budget for 1989. Council member Barnett expressed concern about the increase in the Public Works Maintenance & Operation from 45% to 194 %. City Manager Zais stated that is a part of the Public Works Equipment Rental Budget which will be discussed at the end of the month. He stated Don Toney's budget has a detailed explanation of that. Mr. Zais added that those rates are set based on the actual performance of the prior year's cost which may vary significantly based on the equipment use, the number of breakdown, etc. Council member Foy asked what the loaded, cost on shop time charge and Mr. Zais responded $40 per hour. Council member Foy related a situation where a vehicle ran out of gas and two employees delivered a five gallons of gasoline and billed the department for $80. He stated it is that kind of reasoning that makes him think we need to be very careful about what is going on with these increases. Council member Barnett stated he would like staff to discuss some of the rationale for their significant increases. Council member Sims noted that page 328 of the budget lists the fully burdened rate as $44 per hour. Referring to page 429, Council member Foy asked how staff arrived at an estimated revenue for a plan review fee schedule when a fee, schedule does not exist..Mr. Whitcher explained that that is an estimated revenue based on all of the projects reviewed by the Engineering Department during 1988. He stated that is an estimate as to what could happen if the present work load continues, and that was based on $20 per hour. Council member Foy; asked if staff is not currently collecting 5% from the contractors? Mr. Whitcher stated the 5% is to cover the inspection costs; staff has never collected for the plan review costs. Council member Foy asked that the fee schedule be provided to Council prior to Council making a decision on this policy issue. Mr. Whitcher stated he has developed a draft of the ordinance, however, the concept of the policy issue is all that is being presented at this time. He stated the fee schedule would have to be reviewed and: adopted by Council if the concept is approved during budget review. Council member Foy stated he would like to see everything during the budget review prior to adopting the concept of the policy issue so that he may fully understand it. Council member Barnett referred to the second page of the supplemental memorandum which indicates that the proposed fee schedule and increase in inspection fees could be deleted; he asked if staff is then asking for approval of Items A, B and D? Mr. Whitcher explained that Item C (Establish plan review fee schedule and `increase construction inspection fees) is an attempt to offset a major portion of the cost incurred for plan review and inspection, however, the primary intent of the policy issue is Item B (Establish standards for private construction of public facilities and give the City Engineer the AAD /1 014 NOVEMBER 15, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW ability to enforce those standards). Council member Sims stated he would like to see if the City is competitive for this service and what staff is doing in this policy issue is adding another fee. He stated he is not against the policy issue, he is just concerned that we are not competitive with other areas that are trained to attract businesses, whether it be a ShopKo or a Mini Mart. Mr. Sims asked for clarification on the current policy of charging 5% for inspection fees. Mr. Whitcher stated the City charges 5% to cover the expense of inspections performed by City staff, and anything over that 5% is then billed to the developer. However, many of the developers elect not to pay anything above the 5 %, and the City has to absorb those additional costs incurred during the construction of the project. Council member Sims asked what standards are used by the City at this time. Mr. Whitcher responded that the City currently uses the American Public Works Association standards and Washington State Department of Highway Standard Specifications for Roads, Bridges ands' Municipal Construction as basic guidelines and supplemental technical data pertaining to the project is added by staff. He stated the City Council has never formally adopted these standards to govern utility construction and this needs to be done. Council member Barnett asked if this has been discussed with local contractors or industrial representatives to determine what impact this might have on them ?•Mr. Whitcher stated this has not been done on a formal basis, but local developers are familiar with the City's ' requirements and this would not be uncommon to them. He said in dealing with ShopKo representatives last year he was informed that they are used to working with more stringent requirements than those required by the City of Yakima. Council member Beauchamp commented we need to make sure we are competitive with the Tri Cities and other areas competing for industry so that Yakima's permit and fee schedules are not more stringent than in comparable areas. Mr. Whitcher stated it is not staff's intent to be perceived as negative to industry coming into the area, but it is important to keep in mind that the size of the project directly impacts the number of hours spent in design review and construction costs. Council member Beauchamp asked Mr. Whitcher is there any other method that might be more practical than the 5% method? Mr. Whitcher responded he would like to perform the inspections on an hourly basis rather than the 5% method because there have been instances where the projects have required more inspection time than is covered by the 5% fee. He added that research indicates inspection costs are more in the 10 -13% range. Mayor Berndt asked which costs are covered in the construction costs? Mr. Whitcher stated the 5% covers whatever aspect of the project is applicable, i.e. the widening of a street, water sewer drainage, etc. r- . Under discussion of Page 431, Council member Foy asked when the street break permit fees were last increased? Mr. Covell responded they were increased about four or five years ago. Mr. Foy stated the three major utilities generate $834,300 in franchise tax; in utility tax they make a contribution of $2,445,842, which is just under property tax contributions at $2,635,000 as /contributed to the General Fund source, and they also pay that property tax. He asked if Mr. Covell has talked with representatives of the three utilities about this increase and Mr. Covell responded negatively. Mr. Foy recommended prior to Council taking action on this policy issue that staff discuss this proposal with representatives of the three major utilities as this is a substantial increase. He reminded Mr. Covell that the utility companies already pay a substantial franchise fee for the privilege of operating in the City. Mr. Covell stated the purpose for the increase in the street break permits is to cover the cost of contracting out all of the street break permits issued in the City because this is no longer done by City staff. Referring to page 432 which lists the policy issue of requiring full payment of the Capital Cost Recovery Charge (CCRC), Council member Barnett suggested increasing the interest rate on loans for CCRC connections. Mr. Whitcher stated staff would still have handling, billing and non - payment fees on these accounts. Mr. Hanson stated there have also been instances in the past where properties with CCRC's sold and the property owner failed to transfer the CCRC, thus creating some real administrative problems for the City. Mr. Wheeler stated the real issue is whether or not the City should be in the banking business for anything other than L.I.D's, and secondly, the City does not have the staff to maintain this type of service. Council member Foy stated he would like to know how many AAD /2 .. sJ +::`.:l:ire:i; - rl`}'C?Y,T..'d ..•H'r 01 NOVEMBER45, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING — BUDGET REVIEW contracts the City currently has:'on the.bobks..Mr. Wheeler stated he would have to research this before he could give a response.. Council member Barnett asked about the cost to synchronize the traffic signals on Yakima Avenue? Following a brief 'discussion, Council member Buchanan recounted that Council authorized $50,000 to synchronize the lights on Yakima Avenue and another $50,000 to install left turn signals. He stated staff informed Council at the time that Yakima Avenue could not be properly synchronized with left turn lanes so now it has to be redone. Mr. Covell, referred to page 439, stating the second paragraph which lists projects submitted to the State Legislature for funding should read #1, #2 and #3 as all three projects will be considered by the. legislature in January. Sewer.Division Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent, Chris Waarvick, responded to Council's inquiries regarding this portion of the Preliminary Budget. He stated if the rate increase is implemented at the 50% surcharge level rather than increasing the surcharge to 96%, the revenue projection wouldr be decreased by approximately $164,000. Mr. Waarvick stated later in the week Council will receive a Sewer Plan Adoption Summary which will include a number of options to consider in dealing with the Outside Utility Surcharge. City Manager Zais stated staff will not be prepared to give Council a final position or recommendation until the County's position is known. Mr. Waarvick stated with the approval of the additional staff positions, he would have to develop performance and work. load statistics for those positions that would deal with investigation of inflow, strong waste, pre - treatment, laboratory; administration and engineering. . Council member Barnett referred to page 452, stating he would again like to bring up the Fleet M &O increases for 1989, because this is another example where M &O went up 51%. An extensive discussion followed in which Council members Barnett and Foy questioned the significant increases shown in the fleet maintenance and operation budget, the problem of repairs having to be repeated on the same pieces of equipment, fully loaded shop costs, and the concept of contracting out vehicle maintenance. Mr. Zais stated the Public Works Equipment Rental Budget Review is scheduled.for the end of the month and Fleet Manager Don Toney will be able to properly respond to those, questions at that time. Mayor Berndt asked that these questions be held until discussion of the Public Works budget occurs so Council may continue with the Engineering & Utilities Division. • • Referring to page 453, Public Utilities Services Account 470, Council member Foy asked if electrical costs will be substantially reduced as a result of the reduction in Pacific Power & Light's rates. Mr. Waarvick, stated a new aeration system has been installed and it is unknown what the • energy consumption will be for 1989 at this point. • Council member Beauchamp asked about the recommendation to replace the lawn mower at a cost of $15,000. Mr. Waarvick stated the recommendation was made by the Fleet Manager to replace the mower due to the level of maintenance required. He indicated if Council approves the purchase of this mower and the grouting machine, these items will be transferred to the Fleet Maintenance budget for 1989 capital outlay. Discussion ensued regarding the increase in insurance rates listed on page 463. City Manager Zais stated this is a result of the redistribution of claims and recent loss experience due to sewer backups. Council member Foy stated he would like to see the ordinance addressing sewer backups and grease traps (currently being drafted by staff), presented to Council for adoption by January. A brief discussion ensued regarding Policy Issue D on page 482, Reassignment of Grounds Maintenance Activities. . member Foy commented he believes the private sector could erform these duties cheaper. Mr. Waarvick stated he researched the cost to contract out just the lawn service and that was $3,000 - $4,000 higher than the City's cost to maintain the lawn, the irrigation systems and preventative maintenance on the lawn and grounds maintenance systems. Mr. Waarvick added the AAD /3 016 NOVEMBER 15, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW building maintenance specialist would take care of the grounds maintenance activities currently being performed by. the operations staff and this would allow the operations group to handle more wastewater solid so the City will not have to spend over a half a million dollars in .lagoon cleaning on a frequent basis as is currently the case. Referring to the recommendation to hire a Sanitary Sewer Engineer, Council member Beauchamp expressed concern that once this individual is hired, if there ceased••to be a need for a Sanitary Sewer Engineer, it would be difficult for the City to terminate the individual. Staff indicated if there ceased to be a need for the position it would be deleted. City Manager reviewed the history of Wastewater Treatment Plant project and the Sanitary Sewer Engineer position, stating the first Sanitary Sewer Engineer hired by the City was Dennis Bertek and a second engineer, Jon Weise, was hired as the need became evident. He indicated the City also had an outside consultant working on the project. However; the City Engineer position was eliminated and those duties were assumed by Dennis Covell in 1979. Mr. Zais stated as the Wastewater Project continued, the City utilized the consulting services of Dennis Whitcher who also helped serve on a number of technical reviews and claims reviews in connection with that project. Mr. Zais explained that when Jon Weise left the City, his position as Sanitary Sewer Engineer was eliminated because the project was phasing down at that time. In the early 1980's the needs of the Engineering Department were reviewed and the City Engineer's position was recreated in 1983. The elimination of the position of the second Sanitary Engineer was scheduled by the time the City was through the Wastewater litigation. Mr. Bertek's responsibilities as Sanitary Engineer had been fulfilled and he was promoted to the newly created position of City Engineer. Following Mr. Bertek's departure, recruitment of a City Engineer resulted in hiring Dennis Whitcher. Mr. Zais stated the City is now embarking on a new program and services, part of which will be permanent due to the State and Federal mandates regarding the project' and the City must hire the appropriate staff. He stated the additional administrative workload will require evaluation over a period of time to determine how long additional sanitary engineering support is needed. Council member Barnett stated he is not convinced that one of the • proposed positions should be authorized on a permanent basis. He stated' staff's response has been "give me all, or give me nothing." Mr. Barnett stated he has interpreted that to mean that if Council does not approve the additional eight positions, they will be voting against the Comprehensive Plan. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Zais stated it is Council's responsibility to adopt the Comprehensive Plans in whatever form Council deems appropriate. He further pointed out that it is the Department of Ecology's assessment that the Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently understaffed, and City Management believes those positions set forth in Mr. Waarvick's budget are necessary to perform State and Federal mandates. Under discussion of the new NPDES Permit Staffing Impacts, Council member • Barnett asked staff to include the estimated cost of $7,000 for the legal consultant to prepare the pretreatment program ordinance. Mr. Waarvick stated staff will include this in the budget wrap -up material. He reminded Council that the City's current NPDES permit requires the City to have a Pretreatment Ordinance in development by early next year. City Manager Zais acknowledged that this is a very difficult issue to deal with because the cost has to be borne by local government as State and Federal funds are no longer available. He commented that requirements for improving the water supply and storm drainage systems are on the horizon for local governments as well,. and there will be little or no funding on the State and Federal level for those issues. Council member Beauchamp absent after 11:30 A.M. Mayor Berndt called for a brief recess at this time. Water Division • Water Superintendent Ty Wick responded to Council's inquiries regarding his proposed 1989 budget. Council member Buchanan suggested charging the the School District and Parks Department sufficiently to pay for the amount of water used. Council member Buchanan stated the City should never charge less than cost. Mr. Wick stated he does not disagree, AAD /4 017 NOVEMBER, <15, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETING - BUDGET REVIEW however, the. 'City has allowed the,(School'District and Parks Department to pay a lower rate because of the volume of water used. • Counci] member Foy asked for clarification of the reduction in staff shown on page 488 and then on page 491 the savings of $14,906 from 1988 projected levels compared to 1988 due to the Personnel Division work load. He asked why the position was not left unfilled to take care of the reduction. Mr. Wick stated there was an error in last year's budget. He explained that there was a Policy Issue to add a training position, Waterworks Operator-I, to the reorganization, however, that .was tabled until a decision is made on the Comprehensive Plan. He said that Policy Issue deleted the change in current staffing, but failed to delete that additional position anticipated in the reorganization. Council member Foy asked if that position was intended for 1988 but was unfilled, how can that be a savings if the position was never filled? Mr. Covell interjected that the Water Treatment Plant Staff Reorganization has been placed on hold until Council takes some action on the Comprehensive Water Plan. He explained that the rewriting of the job descriptions to reflect current duties and requirements for training, etc., must be completed prior to filling any positions. Mr. Covell stated the Water Treatment Plant currently has a skeleton crew of five operators and one supervisor working twelve hour shifts, and one employee has promoted to another position in the Water Department. He said if the City hires under the old job description, it will be in violation of State law which now requires certification for operators. Mr. Wick added that the City would be subject to fines from the Department of Social and Health Service if new employees are hired without. proper certification. Mr. Covell stated he has crews on twelve hours shifts now to cover the operation of the plant because .,it is not feasible to shut the Plant down at this time of year. Assistant City Manager Stouder stated the process was placed on hold because those positions are connected to the Water Comprehensive Plan and Council wanted to wait to approve the new staffing . and reorganization consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It was the consensus of the Council that staff present the reclassification, and reorganizational plans for the Water Treatment Plant for review and . consideration as soon as possible. • Referring to the narrative on page 501 regarding the Rattlesnake Creek Project, Council member Barnett commented he does not think the City should continue to expend money on this project without financial commitments from other agencies and cities. Mr. Stouder stated the City will not. be spending money. on the Rattlesnake project during 1989, however, staff time will be spent determining the work program and the environmental impact assessment with the Department of Ecology. He stated it would take six months to a year to determine the work program for Mile ° 11. Mr. Stouder stated it is important that the City of Yakima continue probing this alternative and maintain the City's political posture on the Rattlesnake project. It was the consensus of the Council to recess for lunch at 11 :50 A.M. and resume the budget review session at 1:20 P.M. Referring to page 511, Council member Barnett asked what alternative methods have been re- evaluated since the rejection of the bid for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Contact Basin Rehabilitation? Mr. Wick responded that staff has been looking at various coatings, however, has been unsuccessful in finding one suitable for potable water use.• City Manager Zais shared information with the Council regarding the Water Rights Adjudication and the possibility of further legal assistance from Attorney Don Bond. Following a meeting with his membership Board, Mr. Bond notified Mr. Zais that he would not be able to further represent the City due to potential conflicts on this issue. Mr. Zais stated there are not many attorneys available with skills in the area of water rights. Following the completion of the discussion of the Water Division's budget, the meeting was adjourned at the hour of 1:40 p.m. AAD /5 018 NOVEMBER 15, 1988 ADJOURNED MEETI G - BUDG7 REVIEW READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY ► �� � ! '!. / t 3 - ` cy 01 "v i l InVVC - - � v DATE i f ATTEST: COUN IL D' I:ER / DAT .14 1 • •:_mA _ (.1;?cit" .1-701/ DEPUTY C CLERK MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Barbara J. Toney, CMC. > AAD /6