Loading...
02-24-88 Public Works Comm MinutesFebruary 24, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES 3:00 P.M. Attendance: Chairman Gunnerson, Councilman Furlong, DPW Hammer, Police Chief Clark, Acting Building Official Kerzman, City Surveyor Zavodny. . DPW Hammer opened the meeting by presenting an agenda. He stated he would like to have Public Works Committee meetings scheduled two weeks in advance in order to prepare the Committee members a report on the agenda items one week prior to the meeting for review. Many times, the Committees are required to make decisions on the spot without prior review and he would like to see more review on the topics to be discussed. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PERMITS FOR SIDEWALKS DPW Hammer has spoken with Mr. Staub, who has a newspaper vending machine outside of the Ho Wun location. He stated that he did not issue him a temporary public right-of-way improvement permit, which would allow Mr. Staub to have this machine on the sidewalk. Police Chief Clark stated that Ordinance 2464 disallows the newspaper stand to be in the public right-of-way. After further discussion, the Committee decided to not create a variance from the ordinance, but to enforce the ordinance as it reads. With no further business on the agenda concerning the Police Department and Building Department, Police Chief Clark and Acting Building Official Kerzman excused themselves. DPW Hammer expressed the reasoning for bringing the issue before the Committee. This provides the Committee the opportunity to review such variances on a case by case basis. This allows for the Council to permit certain items that are felt to be a public service, such as the telephones which the past City Council permitted in certain locations. Mayor Kennedy stated, for informational purposes, that the Council has given the Mayor the authority to allow such things as snow cone stands during a parade in parking lots. BANNER POLICY DPW Hammer requested the Committee to review the current banner policy as it stands. He stated that it appears to be getting out of hand and is creating a some problems to the City in regard to profit organizations, such as Coors, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, advertising a large portion of the banners in which they have donated to the non-profit organizations. The second problem deals with the cost of hanging banners, risk of liability and injury with improperly made banners and clamps, which hold the banners, becoming somewhat loose. The costs for hanging banners in total are approxi- mately $200 - $300 per banner. There is no cost, other than $5.00 for processing the permits, to the non-profit organization. C. Gunnerson stated that it is against the law to hang or place anything over a state highway. The Chamber of Commerce had made the suggestion to utilize the area by the Chamber Office to develop some type of public informational sign location. This idea has been discussed in the past. Mayor Kennedy stated that it was his original idea to put a reader board in Depot Park and thought the City should pursue this idea. Discussion of current Policy took place in regard to advertising, quantity allowable and possible elimination of banners. C. Gunnerson will review the Policy and report back to the Committee for further discussion. STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL DPW Hammer presented a list of 59 blocks which are scheduled for street reconstruction for the 1987-88 budget year. He pointed out that the Southwest Kalispell Project has 19 blocks alone that would not be ready for con- struction until the spring of 1988. C. Gunnerson questioned whether the Public Works Department had dollar figures assigned to each of the blocks. DPW Hammer stated that based upon the length and width, the estimated costs per block was approximately $5,000, materials cost only. Labor costs are not figured in this dollar amount. Salaries are • part of the daily operating budget. C. Gunnerson stated that he would like to have some of the projects looked at individually, that is, "Street Department vs Contracting Out". He requested figures for comparison. , February 24, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 2 DPW Hammer stated that his department has these figures from all of the past Council requests. He further stated that the figures have been broken down in everyway possi- ble during the past four years. Every year the Public Works Department has gone through • this concerning_ these controversial issues, and has offered numbers and reports. DPW Hammer explained the conditions his divisions were in prior to his arrival and the drastic changes that have occurred since that time. DPW Hammer believes the City has maximized resources with manpower, equipment and expenses. Prior to 1984, before DPW Hammer worked for the City of Kalispell, the City reconstructed 2 - 4 blocks, chip sealed between 20 - 40 blocks per year. The Public Works Deparmtent has averaged 30 blocks per year since 1984 with the same basic budget. DPW Hammer further reiterated that it is very difficult to figure a city's overhead expense, if not impossible. DPW Hammer presented a few documents on cost comparisons from previous years, but wasn't sure what C. Gunnerson was requesting on the costs. SurveyorZavodny stated that this information does not come easily, sometimes it takes months to gather, prepare and go through the data. DPW Hammer stated that if salary cost alone was figured, considering Davis -Bacon the City would be considerably less expensive. Equipment costs are cheaper for the City and the City has less overhead and no profit. C. Gunnerson questioned whether or not the City can utilize the Street Department for maintenance on the existing streets in a more efficient manner by allowing other major projects to be contracted out. DPW Hammer reported the past Council made the decision to reconstruct streets and perform maintenance December 1987 and this Council may change direction if they so desire. DPW Hammer stated that is all of the street work was contracted, the employees would face lay off. C. Furlong stated that there are only • so many dollars, the concern is unwarranted. If the dollars aren't there for street reconstruction, then it won't be done. He would like to see the biggest bang on our buck for those tax dollars. DPW Hammer and Surveyor Zavodny disagreed with the statement by C. Furlong. DPW Hammer stated that the Public Works Staff believes that the City's costs are cheaper than the contractor. C. Gunnerson stated that this topic did not need to be discussed further at this time. He will do some research on the topic and will report back to the Committee. He also requested DPW Hammer to present the cost for the Street Department. C. Gunnerson questioned an estimated time in which to go out for bids. DPW Hammer stated that the normal time is in January, solicit bids, order in curbs, etc. This has not yet been done. He was waiting for the direction of the new council. Knowing these policy issues would be brought up again, the bids have not gone any further than completing the many hours of preparation for advertising and preparation of the speci- fications and analysis of all of the streets for quantities. C. Gunnerson questioned the cost of going out for bids. DPW Hammer responded that the cost of advertising would be approximately $400.00. Mayor Kennedy stated that in order to advertise, the Public Works Department needs to know if the City will be reconstructing as it has been in the past. Surveyor Zavodny stated that the Public Works Department has spent considerable time during the past 45 days preparing the bids. He also stated that at this point in time, the policy has not been changed to reflect anything different than what has been done in the last few years. C. Gunnerson stated that he sees no • reason why the City can't request the bids, we don't have to do anything about them. Surveyor Zavodny stated that the problem with going on bids and changing in the middle of the game is that we need to be close on quantities on the specifications in order to get a more competitive bid. He further stated that he feels the taxpayer is getting a hell of a bang for their bucks, and doesn't doubt it one bit. It is hard to tell someone new a history of nine years. February 24, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 3 C. Furlong stated that he doesn't want the Public Works Department to interpret dis- satisfaction with the work being performed. • C. Gunnerson believes that the City should get the bid requests and continue on, not to delay any longer. He would like to get the issues resolved within the next three months. Mayor Kennedy stated that DPW Hammer has tried to come up with all of the figures that the Council has requested yearly, taken every approach. His answer each time has been the same but it is not the answer that some of the Councilmen wanted to hear. So they don't believe him. C. Gunnerson wants to have one of these projects selected and have a best estimate on the project, then take the project out to one of the contractors and get a total cost estimate from them and compare the two. DPW Hammer has done this. There are memo- randums, reports, and documentation. The Street Department is less expensive. Surveyor Zavodny pointed out that if the contractor thought that he could prove that point, that he could do the job cheaper, then he would be here today. ENGINEERING VS IN- HOUSE DPW Hammer wanted to make the Committee aware that the Public Works Department does their own engineering unless it is a major project. By having Surveyor Zavodny designing the streets, 45 per year, this saves the City approximately $2,000.00. BARRICADES DPW Hammer stated that contractors in this town have not been known for properly barricading their projects when they are in public right-of-way. They have been constantly warned to buy and provide their own barricades, without success. Therefore, the City finally puts up the barricades due to liability to correct, and • there is no charge. Both Councilmen agreed that if the clause is spelled out in the contract, they would definitely defend the Public Works Department if the job were to be shut down due to improper barricading. Surveyor Zavodny stated that this has been promised before and the Public Works Department is somewhat skeptical as to the backing of the Council since they have not followed through on some occasions. Mayor Kennedy stated that he will hold the Council to the backing that they just pro- mised. C. Furlong thanked the staff and had to leave the meeting. BUDGETS DPW Hammer questioned C. Gunnerson as to the Department Heads responsibility concerning the budgets and informing the Council as to purchases and services. C. Gunnerson stated that the responsibility of the Department Head is to maintain and control the budget for which he is responsible. C. Gunnerson informed the Public Works Staff that there will be four councilmembers on each Committee so there will not be a lack of organization and communication. DPW Hammer responded that he felt better communications between Department Heads and the City Council was very important. DPW Hammer further explained that if the entire Council would ask questions and express their concerns directly to the Department Heads, things might not get blown out of proportion. If there is a problem, he feels that the Councilmembers should either go directly to the Mayor to give some direction to the Department Head, or go directly to that Department Head. Adjourned: 5:15 P.M. 0 as