Loading...
07-31-86 Public Works Comm Minutes• July 31, 1986 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 4:00 P.M. Chairman Ruiz and Councilmen Palmer and Schindler present. Mayor Kennedy, DPW Hammer, Surveyor Zavodny, Construction Inspector Van Dyke, Chief Stefanic and Sidearm Operator Fournier also in attendance. GARBAGE ORDINANCE - Jack Fournier explained the need for seasonal additional pickup during the summer months because of grass clippings. The Committee agreed that if this was done every neighborhood should have the service, not just those with alleys. Other changes needed in the ordiannce were discussed and the Committee asked that the revised ordinance be ready for action at the August 4 meeting. The recommendation from the Committee will be to adopt the ordinance. GARBAGE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT - DPW Hammer explained that presently the complaints are handled by the operator, the Public Works secretary, or by himself. When there is a failure to abide by the ordinance and those individuals above cannot get cooperation the Police Department is called in to enforce the ordinance. Jack explained that in the past people would be issued a warning, then a $15 ticket, then•a $25 ticket, and so on (while the ordinance states it is a $100 ticket). C. Palmer stated that the City should either enforce the code as written or write it as it is being enforced. Chief Stefanic asked who is enforcing? The new budget says that there is no garbage funding for enforcement so the Police Department doesn't • do it. C. Palmer asked why it was necessary for a police officer to enforce it. DPW HAmmer indicated it was the same as snow removal - the Street Department doesn't give tickets for that. Jack said he would feel comfortable only if he had the authority to back him up. Chief Stefanic stated that the dog catcher has authority under the dog ordinances. He also said they would be glad to enforce if given the funding to do so. C. Palmer requested that the City attorney clarify. C. Ruiz pointed out that if that line of thought was carried out the Street Department employees would be enforcing street related ordinances, etc. - and they surely didn't want that. There was discussion of reconsidering budgeting the dog catcher half out of garbage, the garbage budget, and the need for handling complaints. Mayor Kennedy offered some percentages showing the amount of the dog catcher's time spent on garbage calls for the past several years - 22% in 1985-86, and if the first month of 1986-87 was projected out it would be only 11%. The Committee asked for detailed information on actual revenues and expenditures for the last three years be made available before a decision is madeon this issue. 5TH AVENUE WEST PAVING, PHASE II - DPW Hammer explained the attached handouts showing the options available to the Council. To review: When the bids were awarded for Phase II the paving was not included, the Street Department had no funds to contribute to the project and that portion was divided between sewer, water, and tax increment. Point number one was shown as the difference between what the City Street Department can do the job for vs. what it would cost if the job was bid out. The second point, and more important, were the figures showing that there is $117,000 left to do the paving. Going out on bids would cause a shortfall. If the City does the work it will cost considerably • less than the $117,000 available. It will also help the Street Department budget at the same time. PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE • July 31, 1986 Page 2 C. Palmer stated that the Council must be convinced that the work will get done in a reasonable amount of time. DPW Hammer responded that the work to be done will be comparable to what was done on North Meridian (3 inches of cushion and 3 inches of asphalt) and it took the City crews approximately a week and a half to do the 8'2 blocks of North Meridian. The progress of the contractor on Phase II was discussed. He is behind schedule presently but the engineer feels that he will be done by the August 22 deadline. C. Ruiz said he saw no reason to not go to bid just to prove the figures that were provided by DPW Hammer. DPW Hammer stated that he had done some figuring using the actual contractor costs for Center Street work done last year and projecting those costs to cover the 11 blocks of 5th Avenue West, and the contractor's cost for the same area would be $112,000 vs. the City's $80,000. He also explained that when the City goes out for bid the engineer on the project automatically charges a set percentage of the total of the bid for engineering fees, and a set percentage for inspection. In the case of the paving of 5th Avenue West the projected engineering and inspection fees amount to approximately $15,000, a cost that would bg saved if the City crews did the paving. DPW Hammer said he couldn't figure out why more time was being taken in discussion of this issue when it was so plain that the City could do it cheaper. C. Schindler stated that it was not the costs but the availablility. C. Palmer said that as far as he was concerned 1) the Street Department needed • financial relief and he was in favor of having the Street Department do the work and be paid from the construction funds, and 2) the remainder should be put back into the bond reserves. C. Schindler stated that maybe it was time to see if DPW Hammer can do what he says he can. C. Ruiz pointed out that it must be based only on his time - not the contractor's. If the contractor is late finishing then the Street Department should not be blamed if the street is not paved by the time school starts. C. Palmer said he had been hearing very good things about t1i new street superintendent turning the Street Department around. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Council that the Street Department do the paving on 5th Avenue West. PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET DISCUSSION - The Committee asked DPW Hammer to explain the increase of $30,000 in Public Works General Fund salaries and he explained that this represented the Surveyor's helper that has never been budgeted. The excess in the Street Department General Fund salaries is for funding the use of the east side garbage crew on the Street Department from August 21 to the end of the construction season, and for Cunningham and Swanson until the end of the season. DPW Hammer asked if the intention was still the same as it had been to lay off those 5 positions in November and Councilman Palmer concurred. C. Schindler agreed with Cunningham and Swanson layoffs but said he thought the garbage crew was going to be laid off when the east side went to automated pickup, and asked how badly they were needed. DPW Hammer indicated they could easily be kept busy. When asked if 5th Avenue West could be paved without them DPW Hammer responded in the affirmative. DPW HAMmer explained the timing on the projects - the crews will be done • with North Meridian by Monday or Tuesday, will be hauling pit run into 3rd Avenue West North on Wednesday, by the end of the week the curb contractor can begin, and that will leave two weeks before August 22 to pave 5 blocks and finish the area north of the Mall. C. Schindler pointed out that they were cutting back in other areas - there is also work out there for the AI's PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE July 31, 1986 Page 3 but they are being cut back. True, there is always work to do in the streets, but it is the time for the frosting to go and if the job can be done without the extra men he would just as soon do it that way. C. Palmer reaffirmed that everyone wants to see the street work done but the question is how that relates to the budget. C. Ruiz stated that the Street Department has three funds for salaries - General Fund, Special Street Maintenance and Gas Tax, which last year totaled $196,000. This year they total $228,000, so it is up $32,000. Of that increase $25,000 is being incurred against the Street Department (GF). He wondered if for budget purposes, because they are in trouble with the General Fund, would there be any way to readjust those salaries within the Street Department funds so that less is taken out of General Fund. DPW Hammer explained that the Street Maintenance assessments are $137,000 and there is already $170,000 budgeted. The question here is whether the Council wants to raise special assessments. The Public Works recommendation in the budget narratives was not to increase the special assessments, but to balance out the funding using the new Tax Increment funding requested in the budget. With the questions about the Tax^Increment it would push it back to the Gas Tax. DPW Hammer said he had been told there was $60,000 cash in the Gas Tax fund, but he said that was not possible considering a month of salaries and bills. Be also went on to say that what he had budgeted this year was exactly according to the revenues anticipated, so that these funds • will not go in the hole as they have in the past. The excess in the Gas Tax has been used up. He could see a possible $10,000 from the Gas Tax, but said he would feel bad if the dog catcher ended up cutting the Street Department. He pointed out that this department is already laying off 5 people, and the Sewer and Water Committee has been discussing laying off the 2 meter installers, and possibly another worker in the Water Department - it just seems that the Public Works Department, who is doing all these projects and trying to get things done, keeps layir* off and getting budget cuts, and yet the policemen don't want to go out and enforce the garbage ordinance. The police don't even have to talk to the people, just enforce it when we tell them it is needed. If they need a full-time dog catcher then put in for it, don't hide it in the Public Works budget. If they have cuts that need to be made they should make them just like the Public Works Department has had to make theirs. He pointed out that if they would study the comparative budgets they would see that the budgets keep going down while everyone else is going up. Almost 70% of the General Fund goes for police and fire. C. Palmer noted that the only comparisons the Police Department offered were for operation - not wages. DPW Hammer reiterated that he would feel badly if he thought that $10,000 was being taken out of Gas Tax to fund a dog catcher that is not going to be taking care of garbage complaints. C. Palmer stated that they wanted to have as many funds available for the Street Department as possible, but that there was not going to be much if any left over in the Tax Increment.. DPW stated that the $225,000 currently set aside under Public Works from Tax Increment was misleading. C. Palmer said the Tax Increment should be listed under the line items they are rather than under Public Works - $100,000 for lst Alley West to put the wiring underground, etc. That will make it clear that the - Street Department is not getting that money. The question of whether three mechanics were necessary at the City shop. DPW Hammer explained that in order to fund the third mechanic he had taken the amount needed from the inventory line - with the idea that improved work PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE • July 31, 1986 Page 4 and expertise would cut down on the amount of parts and outside services needed. If the third mechanic is removed then the amount should go back into inventory. C. Palmer stated that he felt that two managed mechinics could become as efficient as three mechanics. He went on to say that what they were doing was using bandaids instead of solving problems - and that the City is doing things by personality rather than doing what needs to be done to solve the problems. He asked that DPW Hammer break down parts and contracted work, but also cut one mechanic and do whatever is needed to correct that situation - fire someone, write them up, etc. He stated that there were people right now talking about closing down the City garage because of all the complaints and problems. There was additional discussion of budget problems in general and the figures they were working with, the need to address capital improvements. DPW Hammer explained that in order to put away money for capital improvements a Capital Improvement Fund must be adopted by ordinance and budgeted - if only set aside when things get short at the end of the year it will be used. C. Palmer stated that they were trying to get funds back in ground services not people. DPW Hammer stated that when he came there were 312 mechanics - now there are two. He voluntarily cut back 1'7 mechanics - it's like squeezing a turnip. • He pointed out that there has been alot done since he came and alot of trimming and improving in efficiency - and he has to ask how the Public Works Department (other than the Water Department) can cut anymore. It is discouraging to sit in a Council meeting and have a councilman say they want to do away with the Street Department and contract everything out. C. Palmer defended the comment and said it was made in the interest of long term planning. DPW Hammer pointed out that the whole issue needed to be settled before the budget could be settled. There was additional discussion of construction, maintenance and the balance needed between them, the replacing of water and sewer lines in streets being reconstructed, etc. DPW Hammer reminded the Committee of the program he had laid out three years ago - at least three years of concentrated street reconstruction because the streets were in such bad shape, followed by a combination of reconstruction and maintenance until the two eventually balanced out. That is what is happening. When Council says why don't we just chip seal - most of these streets are not worth doing maintenance on. Most are topsoil overlaid with asphalt and it can't be patched or overlaid but must be completely redone. Chip sealing cannot be done in the shade - which means that there are very few areas in the City where chip sealing can be done. To talk about maintenance is easy when you don't understand what is involved in maintaining streets. The Council needs to sit down and get this issue straightened out. C. Shindler stated that every city in the nation has a budget top heavy in police and fire protection. He said that you couldn't have a budget top heavy in public works and have adequate police and fire protection. Comparing other cities to see how many police and fire personnel were used per capita was suggested. C. Ruiz stated that Kalispell has too many for our size, but that the problem was that Kalispell was impacted by everyone living outside. C. Schindler stated that the problem Marty has is that he is maintaining a city of 30,000 - 40,000 in the daytime. The number of officers added in the PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE July 31, 1986 Page 5 past ten years was discussed and the size of Kalispell - C. Ruiz stated that in the 24 years he has been here the population has only grown by 100 people. The Committee discussed the paying of the Street Department from the construction funds for Phase II for paving and what should be included in that, and how that would affect the budget. The caution was raised that next year it be made clear where those funds came from (non tax revenue). C. Schindler suggested doing one year of just maintenance - but DPW Hammer said again that there were not enough streets to maintain and it was important to keep on with the reconstruction. There was discussion of the need for a mid -budget, a review of the budgets after Christmas. It was pointed, out that the narratives and printouts that are available to Council now could be used to see who is performing according to budget. The Committee asked DPW Hammer to confirlp the amount of Gas Tax monies available, and then to pull back from the General Fund whatever is possible in light of that. 40 ajg 0