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