Loading...
11-16-88 Public Works Comm MinutesNovember 16, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Attendance: Chairman Gunnerson, Councilwoman Hafferman. 5:30 P.M. Others Present: Councilman Saverud, Councilman Atkinson, Councilman Hopkins, Councilman Furlong, DPW Hammer, Ross Plambeck and Susan Moyer of Community Development Department, and Dennis Carver, Carver Engineering. C. Gunnerson opened the meeting stating the purpose is for discussion of the Southwest Project and an additional funding request. He then introduced Dennis Carver, Carver Engineering. SOUTHWEST KALISPELL Mr. Carver provided the Councilmembers present with the history of the Southwest Kalispell project. A portion of the Contract between Carver Engineering and the City of Kalisepll requests determination of the amount of storm water that would be generated in the area and to evaluate the use of ditches and culverts or curb and gutters. Designing the streets with ditches was difficult due to the 30 - 40 feet of right of way in the street. The ditch section cost estimate is $72,000. The evaluation of curb concluded the cost estimate is within $2,000 of the cost for ditch sections. After consulting with DPW Hammer and upon review of the cost estimates, difficulty of ditch installation, and the narrow right- of-way, the project was then designed with curb and gutters. Mr. Carver then drew a sketch of a typical section of the street as it will look for the purpose of providing the Councilmembers with the information EPA will use to determine the amount of funding the City will have available for patch back or recon- struction. EPA will contribute 55% of the cost for replacement of the street section over the sewer. The City, Carver Engineering, and the Health Department are trying to negotiate a simple way of determining the amount of money this will be. DPW Hammer and Mr. Carver are negotiating with WQB for the City. C. Furlong questioned if this is the function of the Design Engineer to negotiate the amounts of money the City is to receive from EPA. Mr. Carver responded no. C. Gunnerson stated it is Mayor Kennedy and DPW Hammer's responsibility to conduct the negotiation. C. Hopkins questioned how the reimbursement and the expense the City is to incur for repairing the streets relate to the storm drainage costs. Mr. Carver responded the street is higher than some of the properties causing water to run off onto the properties. This will require correction. In addition, the streets are narrow. The City will reconstruct the street, rather than pay the contractor to rebuild the streets. C. Hafferman questioned why it had taken until July to decide to use curb and gutter. Also, why the road is too narrow for ditches and not for curb and gutter. Mr. Carver then drew another sketch for explanation. There is 60' needed for ditches and only 40' of right-of-way. Curb and gutter takes less space providing a wider road. C. Furlong stated from the beginning Carver Engineering was told to project both options and one of the two options was part of the project originally. One of the questions he had asked from the onset was does the City have the money to fund this. He was guaranteed by every person at the meeting that the funding was there. DPW Hammer stated $38,000 has been budgeted and approved by the City Council for the drainage for the Southwest project. He had informed the Council during budget hearings this was a different principal for the storm assessment to pay directly for curbs. He had told the Council there was a means in which to put $38,000 in 1988-89 budget year and advised to set aside $36,000 in 1989-90 budget year to fund the curbs. The City Attorney has given him a memo which was sent to all Councilmembers May 20, 1988, bringing to everyone's attention the storm assessment. DPW Hammer was not sure everyone knew about the budgeted item, it is a policy decision on behalf of the Council. iC. Gunnerson stated his concern over the unrepresented magnitude of the funding. His impression was the same as C. Hafferman and C. Furlong that the funding was in place. November 16, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 2 C. Furlong responded the statement regarding the budget, which was approved some time after July, has nothing to do with the project. His concern is over what happened long before that time. On the Council floor in a workshop, C. Furlong had asked the question of the funding to DPW Hammer. C. Furlong stated DPW Hamemr assured the City would be refunded for refinishing the trench. C. Furlong stated at that time he believed by the time the trench was dug, there would not be any surface left and the whole road would be in need of repair. C. Furlong stated it was at that time DPW Hammer had assured the cost of replacing the whole street wasn't going to be very much more because City crews would do the work and Flathead County had made the commitment for approximately $80,000 in materials. DPW Hammer stated the "conversation" was the reimbursement the City was to receive from EPA, 55%, at $9.00/sq.yd., the City might as well reconstruct the entire street instead of replacing something that will not exist. C. Furlong questioned where the money would come from to replace the entire street. DPW Hammer stated 55% of the cost estimate by T, D & H, $117,000 for asphalt replacement, reimbursable for 55%, this left 45% and $48,000. The City's share of $48,000 has been budgeted and set aside out of Gas Tax. Assuming that $117,000 is what will be negotiated with EPA, the City has budgeted $48,000 for the City's share, the sewer EPA Grant of 55% will be the balance. C. Furlong then questioned, if this is true, why does the City have to come up with an additional $72,000 - $78,000? DPW Hammer stated he never said the funding was in place. He has come to the Public Works Committee three or four times and questioned where the funding would be coming from. It is in the minutes. In addition, he has nothing to do with the Grant, he is only dealing with the $48,000 of Gas Tax and negotiating with EPA for reconstructing the streets. C. Gunnerson stated DPW Hammer is a Department Head, the Director of Public Works, it is his responsibility to make sure to inform the City Council of Kalispell what is happening. If the Council did not understand, then it is everyone's problem. The lack of communication is the reason for this meeting. C. Furlong stated he has a right to the information. DPW Hammer stated he had given the information. C. Furlong stated he is not sure the information was given and still has questions. He questioned if the City is going to receive in -kind services from Flathead County. DPW Hammer responded there was never a written commitment made. He had stated he was working with Charlie Phillips, County Road Department, to see if they would assist with in -kind services in materials and believed the City may receive some assistance. The amount would have to be negotiated. C. Furlong stated this was a part of the cost of the project and was explained as part of the financing for completing the roads. DPW Hammer stated it cannot be a part of the cost due to a lack of commitment. C. Furlong agreed those monies from EPA and CDBG were identified. Susan Moyer stated the documented work on the facility plan dates back to March, 1987. In their study, the storm drainage issue was raised and they suggested the cost be covered out of an ordinance of which three similar projects had storm drainage installed out of this source. The final facility plan was completed in February, 1988. In the conversation whe remembers with the Council, C. Furlong had questioned if the funding was in place and that she had answered yes, they knew of the CDBG, and, based upon the cost estimate, they knew EPA would pay 55%. The project was pictured in • Phase I, Phase II. Street reconstruction was going to be done, in order to make the project work with the money coming in and with the City's in -kind services, by City crews. The actual cost of street reconstruction was not a definite figure and would have to be based upon the plan of the Design Engineer. She believes the expressed interest of everyone present with the Council, the job be done in the best interest of the neighborhood and the City. November 16, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 3 C. Furlong questioned DPW Hammer what monies he was referring to when he was asking where funding was coming from. DPW Hammer responded the facilities plan was completed in February, 1988. Mr. Carver was hired for the design just after T, D & H had finished the plan. The budget year runs from 1987-88. There is no way the funding could have been in place in February, 1988 due to being in mid -year for budgeting purposes and the plan not being completed until February. Those dollar figures had to be budgeted during the 1988-89 budget year. C. Furlong questioned which dollar figures and what they have to do with the City's budget. He is speaking about the figures dealing with CDBG. Susan Moyer stated the grants have been awarded to the City and the City has made a draw down on the Block Grant. EPA will soon have a draw on it. When it is stated the money is in place, yes, there is a legal commitment with Helena, the City will receive those funds. The commitments were agreed but not budgeted for. The money had to be budgeted in the 1988-89 budget. C. Furlong stated these funds plus the in -kind services was the cost of the project. He questioned why the cost of the project suddenly increases by $70,000. C. Saverud stated this is a portion of the work which was projected as being done with City forces and now will have to be contracted due to the different design. $72,000 was in City labor, not in actual money. C. Gunnerson stated the problem is the City doesn't budget City labor. DPW Hammer agreed and stated the 2080 man hours per year is delegated and used as Council decides for the Public Works Department to determine priotities. The budgets are based on a lump sum dollar figure. C. Saverud questioned if the City in fact is going to pay more money for this project as a result of installing curb and gutters. Mr. Carver stated no. The amount has been changed into cash from in -kind services. C. Gunnerson expressed concern and questioned DPW Hammer if the City said there were enough labor hours to do the project which equated to $38,000 in labor hours, and are not going to proceed with this, would DPW Hammer prepare an explanation of what the labor hours will be utilized for. DPW Hammer responded yes, and would include maintaining and reconstructing different streets and priorities as decided by Council. C. Furlong stated he is not against the curbs and it is the only logical way to proceed. C. Gunnerson expressed concern, believing every dollar was budgeted. The Council understood the funding for CDBG and EPA was in place. Mr. Plambeck stated the City committed to the project budget and had not budgeted yet. There is a project budget but it is not the budgetary process. C. Furlong stated the commitment was for in -kind services. Mr. Carver stated the City would have had to pay for materials regardless of labor and equipment. Mr. Carver believes it will cost $72,000 to handle the drainage on either option. Susan Moyer then explained the funding process and determination factors used for the Grants. There was an estimated cost figure for street versus actual figures for water and sewer. There was no specific identification of the issue of storm drainage. Mr. Plambeck stated this is a natural process of designing. C. Hopkins stated a third option would be to do nothing. This may not be a responsible • option but it would eliminate the problem of finding extra money. C. Gunnerson expressed opposition to this option. November 16, 1988 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 4 C. Hopkins stated he approaches this project from a different aspect. He was reporting on the project for a long time. There is no surprise to see the figures in terms of City contribution for completion. Susan Moyer stated a decision has to be made. Mr. Carver stated they would like to open bids sometime in January, 1989. C. Furlong questioned when the Council adopted the budget and went through all the rationale presented for the budget by DPW Hammer did it clearly state anywhere $38,000 was for the Southwest project. DPW Hammer stated this was in the Public Works Department Preliminary Budget for all Councilmembers. C. Atkinson read his preliminary budget and acknowledged the costs were shown and labeled Southwest Kalispell Storm Drainage - Engineer's estimate $74,000. C. Atkinson stated he doesn't have any problem paying money out of the Storm Sewer to pay for curb and gutter because it is for storm drainage. In addition, he would like to see the Public Works Department place on the agenda to make a motion to accept the recommendation to appropriate $36,000 for the next budget year. Discussion of accounting systems then took place. C. Gunnerson stated the point which needs to be resolved on the Council floor Monday, November 21, 1988 is the additional $36,000. He will commit to the $36,000 in 1989-90 budgetary process and expects Ken Hammer, as far as Director of Public Works, to assure this Council of the City of Kalispell that the City is going to do all of the necessary work to maintain within that budgetary constraint. DPW Hammer stated he believed this was addressed at the Council Workshop as a Whole. The commitment to the people never was the City would have the streets paved. Susan Moyer stated the residents were never told of the streets due to the unsurety of the approach, the funding, and the construction schedule. C. Hafferman stated whe will make a motion to the Council that $36,000 is to be in the next budget year for curb and gutter. She reiterated what C. Gunnerson stated in which he said he would agree to $36,000 only if DPW Hammer would agree that no more money be spent in the next budget year. C. Hopkins stated he felt uncomfortable with this. What if something unexpected happens? C. Gunnerson restated his concern over a possible change in plans. Adjourned: 7:30 P.M. as