HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-03-22 Minutes1
o
c)
N
U
Q
1
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held
at 7:30 p.m., on March 22, 1983, in Room 107, Continuing Education Center.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Osborne, Orton,
and Sharp; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney
McCord, City Clerk Kelly; members of the press and audience.
CALL TO ORDER - REVENUE SHARING HEARING
Mayor Noland opened the public hearing regarding the 1983 Revenue Sharing
Budget ($787,719) for the City of Fayetteville. The Mayor stated that a
Preliminary Budget Hearing was held on November 10, 1982, and at that time
several written and oral requests were received for funding. Funding for these
requests was handled through the 1983 General Fund Budget. Mayor Noland stated
that the purpose of this particular Public Hearing is to provide the citizens
with an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. This budget is used
strictly to fund salaries in the General Fund, Public Works Fund and Shop Fund.
Mayor Noland then requested any public comment on the proposed Budget. There
being no comments from the citizens or members of the Board, the public hearing
was closed.
459
459.1
459.2
459.3
Director Johnson, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to adopt the 1983
Revenue Sharing Budget. 459.4
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Directors Bumpass
and Osborne being absent for this vote. 459.5
RESOLUTION NO. 38-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 17L OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVI
ENGINEER SELECTION
Mayor Noland stated that the Board of Directors had heard presentations
from the firms of CH2M Hill and Metcalf & Eddy on March 8, 1983. Following
that meeting the Board had asked the City Engineer to request proposals from
these two firms regarding a plan to discharge sewer effluent to the White River.
These two firms were particularly familiar with the situation in Fayetteville
and they made their proposals to the City as of March 18, 1983. Mayor Noland
stated that the first firm to make a presentation at this meeting was determined
by a coin toss, with the other firm vacating the room during the presentation.
As a result of the coin toss, Mr. Chuck Pound of Metcalf & Eddy prepared to make
his presentation to the Board first. Mayor Noland then asked that the presen-
tation be postponed until later in the meeting due to the delay of Director
Osborne.
SEWER REHABILITATION
459.6
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City 459.7
Clerk to execute an agreement for engineering services with McGoodwin, Williams
& Yates. The City's evaluation of the overall sewer system had determined that
there was a considerable amount of infiltration and inflow into the system of
non -sewage type water, both on a continuous basis (infiltration), and during
periods of heavy rainfall (inflow). The City had selected several mini systems
within the main system to be renovated, paying particular attention to the inflow.
Monitoring of these mini systems would take place prior to renovation and after
renovation to determine whether complete renovation of the system would be cost
effective. He added that this would affect 36% of the total sewer lines in the
City. Mayor Noland added that this has been recommended by the Water & Sewer
460 Committee and the EPA is demanding this rehabilitation in order to avoid
treatment of non -sewer water at the sewer treatment plant.
460.1
In discussion of the cost of this rehabilitation, City Engineer Bunn
460.2 stated that the 201 Facility Plan included an estimate of $2.4 million to cover
this rehabilitation, and when the detailed plans and specifications were
completed this figure was lowered to less than $2 million. He added that the
infiltration work, a major portion of the cost, would not be done in that it
proved too costly. Director Bumpass raised a question concerning the cost of
$3,291 to change plans and specifications from the June, 1982 McGoodwin
contract. Mr. Jim Ulmer of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, addressed the Board
and stated that the plans and specifications were divided into two phases,
one for line replace, and one for point source repairs. He stated that the
$3,291 is the cost associated with the combining of those plans and specifi-
cations into one document. He said that the McGoodwin firm is recommending that
the City seek bids for construction on this project to give the local contractors
the opportunity to bid the line replacement and to give the City an advantage
to get lower bids. Mr. Ulmer stated that rehabilitation of the leaks caused
by both infiltration and inflow amounted to an estimated cost of $504,000.
The McGoodwin firm would concentrate on rehabilitation pertaining to inflow
problems, which would amount to $135,500 for line replacement and $109,600
for point source repair. He said the reason for discrepancies in the cost of
line replacement is due to the number of line segments to be replaced within
each mini system, varying from 1 to 8.
460.3 In discussion concerning the flow monitoring process, Mr. Ulmer stated
that once rehabilitation occurs and the component flow is eliminated or sub-
stantially reduced in the mini system, there may be need for rehabilitation
pertaining to infiltration, but, on the other hand, it may be determined to
be insignificant or not cost effective. He stated that monitoring would
occur during dry conditions and during immediate rainfall events to ascertain
the extent and nature of the inflow, by the use of sophisticated equipment.
He added that those flows can also be compared to the City's computerized
billings of water users within a particular mini system. These billings will
indicate the amount of water consumer by sewer users specifically, thus
comparing the useage flow of the sewer user to the flow discharged.
460.4 Director Bumpass asked Mr. Ulmer if he anticipated any change in the scope
of the project and Mr. Ulmer stated that the only substantial change he could
foresee would be if the City chose to limit the number of mini systems rehabil-
itated. Mayor Noland then pointed out that the leakage problem varies in that
portions of the system are of 1920 vintage, while others were constructed as
recently as 1970. He said that the combined cost of the two newest systems
is less than $16,000 for rehabilitation, which is small in comparison to the
rehabilitation needed for some of the older systems. With regard to Director
Sharp's question on the effectiveness of the demonstration project, Mr. Ulmer
stated that this could only be determined after the rehabilitation is completed.
460.5 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Orton, made a motion to authorize
the execution of this resolution and agreement with McGoodwin, Williams &
Yates to implement a sewer system inflow correction demonstration project.
In further discussion, Director Bumpass questioned whether the Professional
460.6 Selection Policy should be P.ived in this instance, and it was determined that th
motion, as presented, would be waiving the "Professional Selection Policy.
Director Orton stated that she is in favor of getting this project done in that
there is urgency to do it while the spring rains are occurring She would be
against waiving the policy if other construction were needed later. The City
Attorney stated that the fact that a member of the Board had asked for recon-
sideration of this resolution and contract deemed it appropriate to be taken
to a vote of the Board.
1
1
1
Director Sharp then referred to a portion of the contract regarding
Flow Monitoring which read, "The engineer shall furnish all labor and 461
equipment and conduct flow monitoring within the designated mini systems
for a minimum of 30 days both before and after completion of the rehabilitation
work to determine the effectiveness of the completed work." Director Sharp felt
this phraseology should include the wording of "one significant rainfall event" 461.1
for evaluation purposes. It was determined that this portion of the contract be
altered to read as follows, "The engineer shall furnish all labor and equipment
and conduct flow monitoring...completed work. Flow monitoring shall be conducted
during and following at least one significant rainfall event as needed to
accurately monitor the amount of inflow before and after completion of the
rehabilitation work."
Director Sharp referred to the equipment costs of $500 per day, and Mr.
Ulmer stated that the McGoodwin firm is assuming some risk in that it may not
rain sufficiently for their monitoring purposes. Director Bumpass pointed out
CO that the guaranteed profit margin on this project is 33%.
461.2
Mayor Noland then called for a roll call on the motion by Director Sharp
to authorize the execution of this resolution and agreement with McGoodwin, 461.3
m Williams & Yates.
Q
1
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1, with Director Bumpass
voting in the minority and Director Osborne being absent for this vote.
RESOLUTION NO. 39-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 2.03 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X UI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
Mayor Noland stated that this was the second in a series of three Board
Meetings at which the 1983 CD Budget would be discussed. He said the total
CD budget for 1983 is $542,000. The Mayor stated that several requests had come
to the Board in a Public Hearing held previously, and the Board had reviewed these
requests in order to limit them to the funds available.
Community Development Director Sandra Carlisle was present and indicated
that $54,000 should be included to cover contingencies. The Mayor then called
for any additional requests. Mr. Richard Mills, of 1641 Vendeventer, stated
that he and his neighbors had previously addressed a meeting of the Street
Committee in a desire to have the 1600 block of Vandeventer paved under CD funds.
He added that this area is heavily trafficked and kicks up a lot of dust and he
asked that an inspection be made of this area to determine its eligibility for
CD funding. Director Johnson referred to the material in the agenda which
indicates that the street appears to be ineligible. Mrs. Carlisle indicated
that the latest data from HUD indicates that eligibility is reached if 51% of
the neighborhood is LMIF, and the survey taken by the CD office of the area in
question indicates it is only 31% eligible. Director Lancaster pointed out to
Mr. Mills the possibility of this group forming an Improvement District to
fund this project.
Mrs. Pat Boudrey, of 3033 West Sandra, represented her neighborhood of Sandra
Drive, One Mile Road, Old Farmington Road, and Velda Court. Mayor Noland reminded
Mrs. Boudrey that this area has been found eligible for CD funding. When Director
Bumpass asked Mrs. Boudrey which location was most in need of paving, she said 461.7
that her choice would be One Mile Road.
Mr. John Boyle and Ms. Janet Richardson, Directors of Children's House and 461.8
SCAN, addressed the Board and reiterated their request for funding. Mayor Noland
said the Board had visited these facilities. Director Sharp stated that Children's
461.4
461.5
461.6
462 House is possibly eligible as a facility for the handicapped, but that SCAN
is probably not eligible. Mrs. Carlisle stated that determination would be
462.1 made by HUD, in that SCAN is a county -wide operation, as to whether these two
requests could be combined into one. Director Lancaster proposed the purchase
o f an existing home for this use and Mr. Boyle, Director of Children's House,
stated that this has been considered in the past, but it has thus far been
infeasible due to the stringent day-care licensing laws, which regulate
requirements of numbers of rest rooms, and fire and health code restrictions.
Mayor Noland stated that this might be looked into in hopes that this type
o f facility might become available. Ms. Richardson, Director of SCAN,
reiterated that one-third of the children served by SCAN are handicapped, so
they might be eligible to be included under this HUD category. She views the
combination of the two organizations as a means of conserving resources in
that both groups coordinate their efforts weekly.
462.2 Mr. Bruce Davis, who is involved with the weatherization program for EOA
Housing, addressed the Board to request matching funds from the CD funding
program to support weatherization program funding currently available under
the Title XX program of the Agency on Aging. These funds would be used to
hire carpenters to work on this program. They are requesting $3,500 for 1983.
He added that during 1982 they worked on 17 homes in Fayetteville, completing
a total of 72 homes in Washington County, and that 90-95% of their clients
are LMIF. The results of this weatherization program indicate a decrease in
fuel bills of about 30%. Mrs. Carlisle stated that Community Development and
EOA work hand in hand in the rehabilitation/weatherization aspect of the
program.
462.3 Mrs. Carlisle then requested the Board take action to eliminate some
o f the requests, due to the limitation of funds, in order to narrow the list
for the succeeding public hearing to be held on April 5th.
Director Johnson, seconded by Director Orton, made a motion recommending
462.4 the allocation of items for consideration of CD block grant funding, as
o utlined in Attachment A. She felt the request made by Children's House and
SCAN should be retained, pending its eligibility for CD funding.
Director Lancaster made a motion to amend this motion to include the
462.5 unpaved portion of West Center, from Razorback to Hartman, in the recommended
allocation of items for CD funds. Director Johnson seconded this motion.
462.6 Upon roll call, the motion and amendment passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with
Directors Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote.
462.7 Mayor Noland stated that the Board would make additional determinations
o f eligibility at the meeting of April 5 in that this proposal exceeds the
CD budget of $542,000 by $337,150.
COMPUTER LAWSUIT
462.8 Mayor Noland stated that a request has been made to table this item
due to the receipt of some additional information on the matter.
462.9 Mayor Noland, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to table
this item.
462.10 Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4-1-2, with Directors
Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote, and Director Sharp voting
in the minority.
1
1
•
REZONING ORDINANCE
463
Mayor Noland stated that the Petitioner, Mr. Zeek Taylor, had requested
rezoning of a 0.21 acre parcel, located on the west side of North Garland Avenue,
north of Holly Street, from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-0 "Residential -
Office." The Planning Commission had recommended the approval of this request by
a 7-0 vote.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Lancaster, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 5-0-2, with Directors Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster,
seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on third and final reading.. Upon roll call, the motion passed by
CO a vote of 5-0-2, with Directors Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote.
CO The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, the
ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this
(_) vote
CO ORDINANCE NO. 2907 APPEARS ON PAGE 39( OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xlll
1
1
SIGN APPEAL
Mayor Noland stated that an appeal was made from Petitioner R & J Land
Company to erect a 2.5 square foot free-standing sign at 660 Lollar Lane.
There being no discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Bumpass 463.4
made a motion to grant this appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance.
463.1
463.2
463.3
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne
being absent for this vote.
ALLEY CLOSING
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance closing and vacating a portion of an
east -west alley, west of Park Avenue, between Ila Street and Maple Street. This
request had been considered in public hearing before the Planning Commission on
March 14th. The Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7-0,
subject to retainage of utility and drainage easements.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, the
ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this
vote.
ORDINANCE NO. 2904 APPEARS ON PAGE 33a. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X1!(
463.5
463.6
463.7
464 CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS I/APPLEBY ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
Mayor Noland stated that this bridge has been scheduled for recon -
464.1 struction due to the June, 1982 flood damage and falls under the Arkansas
State Highway Department's 1983 Bridge Program. He added that in order to
build this bridge it is necessary to condemn some of the adjacent right-of-
way in order to channel the road through this bridge.
City Attorney McCord recommended this matter be tabled until an accurate
464.2 legal description is received from the Highway Department.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to table
464.3 this matter, based on the City Attorney's recommendation.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director
464.4 Osborne being absent for this vote.
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS II/EXTENSION OF JOYCE STREET TO OLD MISSOURI ROAD
464.5 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing and directing the
City Attorney to institute eminent domain proceedings in this matter. City
Attorney McCord explained that these proceedings are to condemn a street
and utility easement across property owned by Rita Ferrell for the purpose
of extending Joyce Street and constructing and maintaining public utility
lines. This is a vacant parcel lying to the north side of the area.
464.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to
authorize the execution of this resolution.
464.7 Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director
Osborne abstaining as he had not been present during discussion of this
matter.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 1/2 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X V(
JOINT USE AGREEMENT/BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
464.8 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute a joint use agreement with Burlington -Northern
Railroad for the four-laning of Gregg Avenue. This would allow the City
access to the land during the construction period.
464.9 Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize
the execution of this resolution.
464.10 Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 41-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 220 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK k:11 1
ENGINEER SELECTION RESUMED
Metcalf & Eddy Presentation
464.11 Mr. Chuck Pound addressed the Board and distributed a written copy of
his prepared remarks (copy on file with City Clerk). He stated that Metcalf
& Eddy welcomed the opportunity to present their qualifications and is
prepared to meet the deadline of ninety days for completion of the amendment
of the 201 Facility Plan.
1
1
1
1
Background Information
465
Mr. Pound stated that his firm had devised studies of land treatment
for the City since October, 1982, and these plans were considered feasible
when compared to the split flow alternative, in so far as land would be made 465.1
available through a cooperative effort of farmers and would be coordinated by
a third party agency. He added that Metcalf & Eddy is not committed to any
particular treatment scheme, process, or alternative, and that they are free to
evaluate any alternative available to achieve the discharge requirements set by the
EPA of 5,5,2,1. He added that his firm has no commitment to any industrial user,
or any other special interest group within the area.
Alternatives Discussed
Mr. Pound proposed that his firm would review the following alternatives. 465.2
CO They are (1) Upgrading the White River Plant to AWT, (2) Developing a new AWT plant;
CO (3) Evaluating the need for a new interceptor -parallel sewer to the treatment
plant, if necessary; (4) Consideration of the transport of secondary effluent to
(� the Arkansas River; and (5) Evaluation of the management of wet weather flows.
CO With regard to the upgrading of the White River, his firm would review several
chemical/biological treatment processes, which can accomplish the needed effluent
requirements. They would review a combination of chemical/biological processes
in conjunction with overland application. His firm would recommend taking 25%
of the design flow as secondary effluent, into the local farming area for
irrigation purposes, with the remainder of the flow being treated to AWT require-
ments and then discharged to the White River. With regard to developing a new AWT
plant, he felt that portions of the existing plant should be retained, but that
some of the existing equipment may not be energy efficient and he recommended
reviewing various plans to attain the same alternative effluent quality. He felt
that the parallel p peline proposed to run from the old sewage treatment plant site
to the new White River plant (with this line to take peak flows, primarily wet
weather flows) maylnot be necessary. In considering transport of secondary
effluent to the Arkansas River, Mr. Pound felt there are alternatives which should
be reviewed and considered from the perspective of both the City and surrounding
communities. He stated that a question exists regarding the management of wet
weather flows as to where it is to be done, how much should be allowed at peak
flow, and the management of it in the treatment plant, as opposed to suppressing
the peak flow prior to its reaching the plant.
Metcalf & Eddy would evaluate these alternatives as they relate to Capital
Cost, Operating Cost, Operating Flexibility and Stability, Simplicity of Opera- 465.3
tion, Environmental Impacts, Implementability and Funding. He said that while
Capital Costs can be defrayed by grant programs, the Operating Costs should be
carefully considered. He added that the present administration has recommended
that the Clean Water Grant Program continue at the same level of funding through
1986 and that his firm would phase their program to best utilize this funding.
In assessing areas of savings, he stated that the parallel pipeline could be
replaced by a pumping station which could save approximately $2.5 million, in that
the pump station is only run during rainfall, thus eliminating power costs. He felt
that a holding reservoir is not needed and could save approximately $4 million in
capital and operating costs. He felt that the assistance of Metcalf & Eddy in
training and start-up operations would reduce costs substantially and guarantee
the successful operation of the plant.
Summary
Mr. Pound stated that his firm is prepared to begin the project immediately
and he stressed the credibility of his firm with state and federal agencies and 465.4
their ability to meet schedules and budgets. Metcalf & Eddy has built numerous
plants which meet the effluent requirements for which they were designed, and his
firm has the expertise to perform these necessary tasks.
461; Mayor Noland then asked for questions from the Board. Director Orton
asked Mr. Pound what guarantee his firm can give the City that the finished
plant will meet the standards of 5,5,2,1. Mr. Pound stated that he can
466.1 guarantee the design and performance of the plant during the time under
contract if his firm has contractual authority to direct the operation of
the plant. He added that his firm can post a letter of credit to guarantee
this performance. Director Bumpass asked what effect this guarantee would
have of possibly limiting increases in sewer rates, and Mr. Pound stated
that all of the proposals they have previously submitted to other communi-
ties have resulted in savings of community money.
CH2M Hill Presentation
466.2 Dr. Cliff Thompson addressed the Board and stated that his proposal
submitted to the Board (on file with City Clerk) had summarized the acti-
vities of CH2M Hill since April, 1982, and addressed some specific comments
concerning (1) the stability of the proposed biological processes; (2)
ability of the AWT/Overland Flow option to meet discharge requirements; (3)
the need for equalization of flow and net inlet works prior to waste treat-
ment; (4) location of facilities in the flood plain; (5) use of the existing
treatment plant; (6) assessment of sludge handling and disposal; (7) adequacy
of the CH2M Hill cost estimate; and (8) the ability of CH2M Hill to serve
the City of Fayetteville. Dr. Thompson stated that he does not feel that
there is a need for equalization of flow and net inlet works prior to waste
treatment. He added that none of the plans had accurately addressed the
issue of sludge handling and disposal. Ha stated that the Step I phase would
include the capital and operating costs associated with the renovation of the
existing plant. Step 1 would also include the amending of the 201 Facility Plan.
He said that the selection of the alternative to be proposed could be done
through discussions with regulatory agencies and discussions with City Staff,
followed by a public hearing and workshop seminars. An analysis of the
applications of treated wastewater into the White River and the Beaver Lake
watershed will be undertaken and will be discussed publicly. Step II is
to be divided into two phases, the first being pre-design, at which time any
amendments would be made, followed by the final design activity, which Dr.
Thompson felt could be completed within the April 30th deadline. He added
that his firm would maintain a project office in Fayetteville to insure close
coordination among his firm, the City, and McClelland Consulting Engineers.
In conclusion he stressed CH2M Hill's ability to serve Fayetteville and
466.3 he felt that the decision to change from split flow would result in a savings
to Fayetteville, over the life of the project, of in excess of $60 million.
Mayor Noland then called for questions from the Board. Director Orton
466.4 asked Dr. Thompson what guarantee his firm can give the City that the finished
plant will meet the standards of 5,5,2,1. Dr. Thompson said that the strongest
guarantee he could make was based on their professional reputation. Director
Orton then asked what steps CH2M Hill would take if the plant does not meet
these standards. He said they would first determine if the reason were design
error, which would afford the City recourse in the matter. He added that
the first indication of failure to meet standards would come from the EPA.
When Director Lancaster asked Dr. Thompson about bonding of his firm as a
guarantee of performance, Dr. Thompson said that CH2M Hill has professional
liability insurance which can be written in line with the limits specified
within the contract.
1
1
1
1
1
Director Bumpass asked Dr. Thompson what approach his firm would take
from an operational standpoint, and Dr. Thompson stated that his firm would
make recommendations on level of staffing for the plant. He added that this
might pose a difference of opinion from the City. He said that when the plant
began to have problems, his staff would step in to solve those problems. Director
Bumpass asked Dr. Thompson what relationship CH2M Hill had with Campbell Soup at
the present time and Dr. Thompson pointed out that CH2M Hill's work for Campbell
Soup concluded on February 23rd. He sees no conflict of interest in any future
activities.
467
467.1
Unrelated to either of the engineering firms' presentations, Director Osborne
stated that the City has not been given a guarantee from Campbell Soup that the 467.2
facility would remain in Fayetteville. Mayor Noland stated that this guarantee
would be needed prior to the City investing funds to accommodate the flow
generated by the Campbell Plant. Mr. Dick Bailey, Plant Manager of Campbell Soup,
stated that his firm cannot make a definite commitment on their plans until the
Board makes a decision on alternatives and rates involved with those alternatives.
Director Bumpass felt there had been a lack of study of the integration of the
rate structure with the proposed design alternatives, and how those rates would
impact both residential and commercial -industrial users.
Mayor Noland then stated that both proposals had been of the highest calibre
and that the decision before the Board was a difficult one. He stated that the
decision is based on the guidelines of the Professional Selection Policy, adopted
by the Board on April 21, 1981. These guidelines are: (A) Qualifications in
Relation to Specific Project to be Performed (Maximum Points 25); (B) Experience,
Competence, and Capacity for Performance (Maximum Points 20); (C) Proposed Method
of Doing Work (Maximum Points 20); (D) Past Performance (Maximum Points 10), for
a Subtotal of 75 Maximum Points, followed by consideration of Guideline (E) Price
(Maximum Points 25), for a grand total of 100 points maximum.
In discussion of the manner of voting on the engineering firm, Director
Orton recalled that a previous selection by the Board of Metcalf & Eddy to
study land application was made by voting by firm name, rather than by a point
tally, and after the sealed fee proposal was reviewed, the Board had the option
of changing votes.
Director Sharp, seconded
by firm name, and then review
failed by a vote of 4-3, with
the minority.
by Director Orton, made a motion to
the fee proposals. Upon roll call,
Directors Sharp, Orton, and Johnson
select the firm
the motion
voting in
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to take
a tally by individual Board member, using the point system outlined in the
Professional Selection Policy, (Guidelines A through D), followed by a tally by
individual Board member, (Guideline E, fee proposal). Upon roll call, the motion
passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors Orton and Johnson voting in the minority.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to recess
to afford the Board members an opportunity to prepare their individual tally
sheets. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Meeting Reconvened
Mayor Noland stated that City Attorney McCord had recommended that each
member submit a tally sheet and those results be tallied on a tally board.
was done to avoid the possibility of one individual Board member making the
vote and heavily weighing the vote.
The Board then made their individual tallies of Categories A through D of
the Professional Selection Policy (copy attached as Attachment B). This tally
resulted in the firm of CH2M Hill receiving a Subtotal of points of 503;
467.3
467.4
467.5
467.6
467.7
Board
This 467.8
last
467.9
46S Metcalf & Eddy received a Subtotal of points of 427. (See Attachment B-1).
The Board then reviewed the sealed fee proposals. Mayor Noland pointed out
that the firms were asked to include in their fee proposal (1) the hourly rate
for various personnel involved in the work; (2) the multiplier figure used to
468.1 determine overhead; and (3) the percentage figure used to calculate profit.
Using this data, the firms were asked to answer the following: Assuming a
standard A-0, A.W.T. plant is designed for location at the present plant site
to achieve 5,5,2,1 effluent limits, estimate the engineering fees for the
following: (Plant with construction costs of $20,000,000; Plant with construction
costs of 525,000,000; and Plant with construction costs of $30,000,000. (This is Phase
II of the project). The costs submitted were as follows; With plant construction
o f $20 Million, $25 Million, and $30 million, respectively, Metcalf &
Eddy estimates were $906,000, $1,080,000, and $1,260 000, respectively. With
plant construction of $20 million, $25 million, and $30 million, respectively,
CH2M Hill estimates were $1,032,600 $1,270,000, and $1,270,000, respectively.
In Phase I, Metcalf & Eddy estimated cost of $24,800; CH2M Hill estimated cost
o f $77,000.
468.2 The Board then made their individual tallies of Category E, pertaining to
fee proposals. This tally resulted in the firm of CH2M Hill receiving 146 points
for a Grand Total of 649; Metcalf & Eddy receiving 159 points for a Grand Total
o f 586. (See Attachment B-1).
468.3 Director Orton asked whether these prices included the supervision of the
construction. Both of the engineering firms' representatives stated that this
cost estimate did not include supervision of the construction. Director Johnson
pointed out that the Board had requested in the Request for Proposals that at
the beginning of Phase II a not -to -exceed fee shall be negotiated, and if
agreement cannot be reached the City reserves the right to contract with another
firm for Phase II. She stated that the profit percentage objective of CH2M
Hill is 10%; the profit percentage objective of Metcalf & Eddy is 12%.
Mayor Noland then reiterated the Grand Totals as being 649 points for CH2M Hill
and 586 points for Metcalf & Eddy.
468.4 City Attorney McCord recommended the Board adopt a resolution authorizing
the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with CH2M Hill, in associa-
tion with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., for an amendment to the City's
201 Facility Plan. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion
to authorize the execution of this resolution and contract for Phase I of this
project, with CH2M Hill. Director Sharp reiterated that when the project
reached Phase II, the Board would negotiate this contract price.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 43-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 23( OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVI
SEWER RATES DISCUSSION
468.5 Mayor Noland called for further discussion in conjunction with the ordinance
pending to increase sewer rates. He stated that the City has received some sewer
rate structuring based on estimated borrowings of $8 million necessary to complete
the City's sewer system. Mr. Blaine Bickel of Black & Veatch was present to
address any questions on this matter. Mayor Noland added that since the
previous discussions on this matter, Black & Veatch had submitted an additional
series of rates with various options with respect to the estimated borrowings
being considered by the Board.
1
•
Director Bumpass stated that he had recently worked with the Finance 469
Department, the Data Processing Department, and the Water & Sewer Department
to attempt to determine a rate structure policy which is more equitable to the
III situation in Fayetteville. He feels the rate increaes, as proposed, don't 469.1
consider the $1,100,000 of sales tax proceeds which could be applied to capital
improvements to the City's sewer plant. Secondly, he felt the residential rates,
as proposed, will be unacceptable to the community. Thirdly, he felt that an
alternative source of revenue to the Water & Sewer Budget should be investigated,
for use in the "capitalization" fund for improvements prior to initiation of
bonding procedures. He said that water rates should be redefined in order to
gather more revenue from the larger users in the system. Fourthly, in conjunc-
tion with the cost allocation paid from the Water & Sewer Fund to the General
Fund for Administrative Services, he stated that this rate is currently 21.5% of
the Water & Sewer payroll. He proposed eliminating this allocation, stating
03 further that if this amount ($250,000 in the 1982 Water & Sewer Budget), is
(l compounded by 12% interest, and 10% inflation, it would amount to an excessive
amount at the end of the bond period. He felt that investigation should be made
U to determine the revenue needed to cover this expense and the related rate
CO structuring. He also felt there would be no forfeiture of EPA funding if the
City changed the way the proposed rate structure distinguished between residential
Q users and all other users. He proposed all users of the system pay the same rate
for each 1,000 gallons of treated sewage sent to the plant. He felt that all
of these points should be addressed in discussions with the firm of Black &
Veatch.
1
1
Director Orton suggested referring this matter to the Water & Sewer Committee,
with the Board members in attendance. She also felt some areas should be further
clarified. Mayor Noland pointed out that the EPA governs water rates to the
extent that the City's rates must be based on cost of service.
Mr. Blaine Bickel of Black & Veatch addressed the Board. He referred to
the plan to rehabilitate the mini systems within the system, which had been
approved by the Board earlier, and pointed out that those projects are in the
residential areas. He stated that the infiltration -inflow allocation proposed
by Black & Veatch was based three-fourths on number of customers, and one-fourth
on volume. He added that Black & Veatch had performed studies based on
infiltration -inflow in other communities, and feels this is a good basis for the
allocation proposed by his firm. He further stated that in making allocations
of residential use, a maximum capacity of use by customer is provided. The
lines have to be sized to handle a variety of use. He added that the same
principal has to be applied to sewer use. He stated that the investment involved
with installing sewer line and maintaining that sewer line for residential use
is higher for residential use, than commercial -industrial use, because the load
pattern for residential use is uneven.
Director Bumpass stated that Black & Veatch had performed consulting
services for Campbell Soup and Beaver Lake Water District in the past and he
asked Mr. Bickel if he felt this posed a possible conflict of interest. Mr.
Bickel stated that he did not see this as a conflict with the City's needs,
and City Manager Grimes pointed out that he had been made aware of Black &
Veatch' intentions to do consulting for Beaver Lake Water District prior to
that firm's acceptance of the contract. Mr. Grimes felt this did not pose
any difficulty.
469.2
469.3
469.4
470 The discussion being concluded, Director Bumpass, seconded by Director
Osborne, made a motion to table this matter and refer it to the Water &
Sewer Committee for the purpose of reconsideration of past policies in rate
470.1 structuring and discussion of the use of sales tax proceeds to offset sewer
rates. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors
Johnson and Lancaster voting in the minority.
ZION ROAD/COLLEGE AVENUE SIGNAL -MAINTENANCE & OWNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the
470.2 City Clerk to execute an agreement with Aetna Life Insurance Company, by
Rouse Management Services Corporation, transferring the ownership and main-
tenance responsibility of the Zion Road/College Avenue signal to the City.
470.3 Director Bumpass, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to authorize
the execution of this resolution and agreement.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 42-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 226 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVI
BID AWARD I/STREET STRIPING
470.4 Mayor Noland called for an ordinance waiving the competitive bidding
requirements for the acquisition of street striping services and the award
of a contract for the work to Stafford Enterprises, Inc., of Alexander, Arkansas.
This contract would be at the price of $ 11 per linear foot of skip line, $.09
per linear foot of continuous line, and $60.00 each for left or right turn
arrows. The contract would expire September 21, 1983.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
470.5 Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to further suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call,
the motion passed by a vote of 7-0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the final time.
470.6 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 2905 APPEARS ON PAGE 835 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X111
BID AWARD II/PURCHASE OF POLICE VEHICLE
Mayor Noland called for an ordinance waiving the competitive bidding
470.7 requirements for the purchase of a vehicle for the Chief of Police, and the
awarding of the contract to Nelms Chevrolet in the amount of $10,256. This
vehicle is a 1983 Caprice Classic, 4 door. Purchasing Agent Mackey stated
that this vehicle is ready for immediate delivery.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland,
470.8 seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Johnson, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to further suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll
call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0, and the City Attorney read the
ordinance for the final time.
1
1
1
Upon moll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE N0. 2906 APPEARS ON PAGE 33R OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIII
1983 PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN APPROVED
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution approving the 1983 Pay and Classification
Plan for City employees. He stated that this had been discussed at several 471.1
meetings of the Finance Committee. City Manager Grimes stated that this plan
includes recommendations previously made by the Board of Directors. Director
Bumpass asked whether anything had been changed in the plan concerning the posi-
tions of the Policemen and Fireman, and City Manager Grimes stated that the number
of scales had been reduced for the purpose of consolidation, but that this reduc-
tion did not reflect any alterations in job classifications of employees.
CO
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to approve this
471
U resolution to adopt the 1983 Pay and Classification Plan for City employees.
m Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Q
1
RESOLUTION N0. 44-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 240 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(kJ(
471.2
OTHER BUSINESS
Environmental Impact Study
City Manager Grimes reiterated facts directed to the Board in a letter from 471.3
City Attorney McCord to Comprehensive Planning Institute, included in the
agenda material. To paraphrase, the letter reads in part, "The Environmental
Protection Agency has advised City Manager Grimes that auditors from the Office
of the Inspector General have made four unsuccessful attempts to gain access to
records of Comprehensive Planning Institute relating to preparation of an
environmental impact statement for the City's proposed wastewater treatment
project. The EPA has advised the City that unless the OIG auditors gain access
to these records, the EPA will disallow all expenditures on the project related to the
work of CPI...The City of Fayetteville requests that CPI make records pertaining
to this project available to auditors from the OIG as required by CPI's contract
with the City."
City Manager Grimes stated that attempts to acquire these records have failed,
and the City Attorney is recommending that the City institute litigation against 471.4
CPI to provide these records to the City.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize
the litigation proceedings against CPI. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0.
IBI, Inc. v. City of Fayetteville
City Manager Grimes and City Attorney McCord made the recommendation that
this case be appealed. The case pertains to the dedication of land for park
purposes. Mayor Noland stated that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee
-has asked that the City appeal. City Attorney McCord stated that he would
endeavor to have the decision reversed or•clarified in the Supreme. Court.
Director Orton, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to appeal this
case ruling to the Supreme Court. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
7-0.
471.5
471.6
471.7
472 Donrey Communications Co., Inc. v. City of Fayetteville
This case pertains to the authority of municipalities to require the
uncompensated removal of non -conforming outdoor advertising signs located
472.1 adjacent to federal -aid highways. City Attorney McCord stated that the
plaintiffs have not filed a petition for rehearing on this case to date.
He felt that the ordinance could be inforced within a week's time from
the deadline for the filing of that appeal.
Meetings Scheduled
472.2 Street Committee Meeting, 2:00 p.m., March 29th, CEC, Room 107; City
Hall Committee Meeting, 3:00 p.m., March 29th, CEC, Room 107; Parks &
Recreation Committee Meeting (with Board present), 4:30 p.m., March 29th,
CEC, Room 107; Water & Sewer Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m., March 31st,
Chamber; and Nominating Committee, 1:00 p.m., April 4th, Chamber.
Director Osborne said the Finance Committee meeting is to be scheduled
472.3 and stated that discussion would include parking, the Professional Selection
Policy, the contribution by the City toward Fayetteville Open Channel, and
the contribution by the City of sales tax proceeds to finance the County Jail.
Burying of Telephone/Electrical Conduit
472.4 Director Bumpass reported that arrangements had been made during the
Police & Fire Committee Meeting for telephone conduit to be buried at the
same time secondary electric power conduit was put underground. Although no
telephone lines would be relocated at this time, if they needed to be in the
future because of changing equipment, vandalism, or deterioration, then
conduit to the respective places would already be underground and the area
would not need to be torn up. Indications were that this telephone conduit
could be placed underground now for about $1,000.
Director Bumpass also noted that copies of the Springdale Burglar Alarm
472.5 Ordinance had been included in the Directors' agendas and he mentioned that
the subject had been discussed at the Police & Fire Committee Meeting. He
pointed out that last month there were 113 alarms registered, of which 111
were false alarms, and two pertained to actual attempted entry. He said
the Police & Fire Committee would be looking into the matter further and to
aid in its deliberations, he had ordered a bibliography from the National
Criminal Justice Information System. One option that appears to be attractive
at this time is a change out in the alarm receiving equipment in the Police
Station, using solid state equipment that requires only two telephone lines.
In a related matter Director Osborne stated that he had heard that the
472.6 Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock had had five false alarms the previous day.
Microdata Letter
472.7 City Attorney McCord called the Board's attention to the letter from
Microdata Corporation in the agenda material in which Microdata had denied
that they reengineered any hardware. Director Johnson stated that she would
like to review this letter.
1
1
1
1
MINUTES 473
The Minutes of the Meeting of March 1, 1983 stand approved as submitted.
The Minutes of the Meeting of March 8, 1983 require the following changes: 473.1
453.2: "Ernie Croxton" should be changed to "Hardy Croxton."
456.1: This paragraph should be reworded. It should read, "of this plan.
Directors Orton and Sharp supported the regional approach to protecting
Beaver Lake but did not want any specific solution stated.at this time.
The Board concurred. -Director Osborne stated that he felt..."
CO ADJOURNMENT
(11
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:25. 473.2
U
CO
Q
1
•
•
t
ATTACHMENT A
1953 CPRC RUDrF.T PROPOSALS
11!.!r. r BT L1 TY
Annum.I"ATR
LE>'rT'1
11"—
.A9Pe0YT".AT'
COT - ex_
clnding en,
tering r, cr
rin°nnries
*ALLOCATED MARCH 22, 1983
*
Note:
•
ADMINISTRATION
Salaries, office supplies, rent, telephone,
etc.
FQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY
Eligible Matching funds to support weatherization
program
110USING REHABILITATION
Eligible Twenty-one elderly applicants on waiting list.
One loan applicant.
STREETS
Eligible Sandra (One Mile Rd. to Old F'ton)
Asphalt
Eligible One Mile Road (Hwy 62 to Old F'ton)
Excluding Lois Stratton improvement
Asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk
Eligible
Eligible
New survey required
Survey required
Ineligible
Survey required
ti
Ineligible
•
Ineligible
Survey required
Velda Court (One Mile Rd. to cul-de-sac)
Asphalt
Old Farmington (62W to Bypass)
Asphalt
Stonebridge Road (Nyman to Hwy 16)
Asphalt
W. Center (Razorback to Hartman)
Concrete, curb, gutter, storm
drainage (unpaved portion only)
Putman Street (Hill to University)
Benefits apt. owner
Lawson (Woolsey to Gregg)
Concrete, curb, gutter, side-
walk, storm drainage
Corner of Sycamore E Garland
Not clear as to request
Corner of (Hughes 0 Leverett
Not clear as to request
Vandeventer-(Spruce to Sycamore)
Only 36% 1N.IF
Spruce (Vandeventer to Creeg)
Only 36% L'4IF
Cross Avenue (Markham to Ilaisell)
Asphalt - only serves 1 house
1,200'
1,000'
300'
4,800
600'
2,200'
2,400
1,200'
1,200'
$ 74,990
3 , SOO
1'-5,900
78,000
65,000
3,16n
96,000
12,000
225,000
245,0(10
75,000
75,000
13,209
*Allocated March 22, 1983
*
CDBf 1983 Proposed Budget
Pane Two.
ELIGIBILITY
APPROCRI
LCi:GI[I
re AP v.n
f0 PN.
in„ im
ing G Cont
eenci es
Survey required
Probably eligible
Ineligible
Eligible
Eligible
Eligible
Probably eligible
Survey required
Survey required
Survey required
Already 29 existing
parks in city.
ti Property belongs
to U af A
Not feasible until
Hwy Dept. through
with widening
VTREETS (Cont.1
Oakland (North to Sycamore)
See attached report from Street
Superintendent
Lewis Avenue (Cleveland to private drive)
Lytton (Huntsville to end)
Blair (Huntsville to end)
Mashburn (Huntsville to end)
SIDEWALKS
Ellis (Dunn to 1Ii11)
concrete, curb G gutter, stern
drainage, crossings, sidewalks, drive
ramps, tile, french drain, 4 drop in-
lets, excavation, hillside
Razorback Road (62W to Cleveland)
Majority of property belongs to U of A
Wedington
Not enough information provided
Lewis (Dean to Wedington)
Either on Asbell School property
or U of A property. A few duplexes
Dean (Lewis to Sang)
Either on Asbell School property
or U of A property.
Mt. Comfort (Lewis to Garland)
Not feasible unless entire street
undertaken after drainage has been
accomplished,
a
PARKS & RECREATION
Park request for Northeast Fayetteville (east
of Hwy 71 and north of lluntsville Road)
Acquisition of field at corner of Mt. Comfort
G N. Lewis for soccer field
DRAINAGE f, FLOOD CONTROL
Channelize Farmington Branch from rear property
lines along north side of Old Farmington Road
following branch southwest and then west to
beyond Dinsmore Trail.
Dinsmore Tr. ber,ins at Poclacement of low water bridge across
Ilwy 62, veers cut of flranch on Dinsmore Trail
the city limits and
east back into the
city limits. Cnly. 4 - 6
hones are within r';ille
itself. funds rJst be snend for
F'v,Ile benefit, not county.
600'
460'
690'
2,300'
2,930
1.320
2,850
Farmington
$ 349,361.
65,000
65,000
65,000
50,000
•
CDBG 1983 Proposed Budget
Pace 3.
1 * Allocated March 22, 1983
1
*(pending
Eligibility)
IUD is checking
eligibility of
drainage study com-
pleted. Would move
cautiously en this.
Children's Nouse
possibly eligible
•under Facilities for
the Handicapped. SCAN
probably not eligible.
Need determination from FUD.
DRAINAGE fi Frain CONTROI.
Wedington area drainage (Clayton Polell's
priorities numbers 1 - 14)
CHILDREN'S HOUSE AND SCAN
Two year funding requested for facility to
house both agencies for $185.000
No more CD funds
can be spent as
project has been
completed in our
records. Total
spent to date:
$172, 153.4lvtfkf.Int
WATER E SEINER
Provide fire protection capability to:
Lee E Helen Streets
Giles Addition
SENIOR CENTER
Parking lot expansion and outdoor lighting
9. 100
97.:00
13,000
48,400
r
1
1
•
•
•
2.06
Attachment B
CITY OF FAYETTEEV'ILLE
PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT POLICY
(Adopted April 21, 1981)
The following are the guidelines to be followed it obtaining -all
professional contracts over 55,000 (see note 1) for the City of Fayetteville
excluding Community Development. The City Board may waive submission of
proposals under this policy by a majority vote.
1. Scooe of Work
The staff shall develop or procure professional help to develop the
scope of the project. The scope will be developed in sucn a manner :hat
proposals for the project may be requested from professional orcanizations.
If the City staff must procure professional help to develop the score, the
involved City Department Head(s) and City Manager shall cnoose the most
advantageous professional firm after receiving rate quotations and
negotiations of the price. Contract will then be revieweo by the City Attorney
and Finance Director and recommended to the Board.
2. Proposals
Proposals shall be solicited from an adequate number of qualified
sources to permit reasonable competition. Proposals will be mace only on tie
scope developed and shall include the following:
A. Qualifications in Relation to Specific Project to be Performed
information reflecting reflecting qualifications of tree firm. indicate
specialized experience and technical competence of the firm'
in connection with the type and complexity of the service required.
Subcontractors, If used, must be listed with information on
their organization.
B. Experience. Competence. and Capacity for Performance - Information
reflecting the names, titles, ono qualifications linziudino
experience and technical competence) of the major personnel
assigned to this specific project. Provide detailed oreaktown
o f subcontractor's staff to be used and how they are to De used
to supplement your staff.
C. Proposed Method of Doing Work - A proposed work pian (description
o r now the project wouio oe conducted as well as caner facts
concerning approach to scope you wish to present) indfcatinc
methods and schedules for accomplishing each pnase of toe work.
Include with this the amoUnL e." work presently ur_erway.
D. Past Performance - Previous evaluations (as set •,.th in r.u:7;er 5)
snail oe tcnsicered a significant factor. if previous evaluations
w itn tnis City are not available, the profession firm's past
performance records with City and others will ces=c, inciLcir•g
quality of work, timely performance, tilicenc_n. =-.l: ;e ret
past
hucc__s, and any other pertinent rotor-:ction.(�--e'` i,.^ ,., ..
. •.:ion
be used only until evaluation system has hac ti:r._ ;c eeeevc•iopcc )J
Firm will provide list of similar jobs performer ._:•Sp❑ %%nor:
we -can contact for inforr..jtion.
•
2.07
3. Pro_asal Evaluation and Nenotiation
Proposal evaluation and negotiation shall consist of three steps:
STEP A - Selection of too qualifyinc firms:
Description Maximum Points
A. Qualifications in relation to specific
project to be performed
B. Experience, competence, and capacity
for performance
C. Proposed method of doing work
D. Past Performance
25
20
20
10
Sub -total points 75
Proposals will be reviewed by the selection committee using the
above selection criteria. Each member of the committee will assign
points to each criteria based on the content of the proposal. The
three fires receiving the highest accumulated sub -total points, as
rated by the selection committee, will move on to step B. All otner
firms submitting proposals will be notified in writing and thanked
for their interest in the project.
•
STEP B - Selection of the too rated fire:
The three firms receiving the highest accumulated sub -total points
will be asked for the following information:
Description Maximum Points
E. Price - Total estimated price of your
professional services for this project.
The total estimated price must be
reasonably accurate. Also, maximum cost
for "maximum not to exceed" clause and
additional service rates information shall
be given. 25
Total
points 100
The selection committee will rate this criteria (as in Step N
above) awartinq up to a maximum of 25 points. Tnese points will oe
Cc7Dir-_'d with :he aszicneo ep7L,S in Step . to -r."lye at "Total
Pcicta (rlaxi L.um of IOC). Tne firm recti in: :me nimnest acCL:: fated
:mints" .ill .move into S:_- C.
,tin :_i ^_c:ion co."...,.1 __ :o 3CCle`._ .^,^ most
contract Ire City -.,,. :ill trio sei___el firm
(iimm 1:17_7 -7'_' nimnest accu.::u1,.__. 'total Jin.- •r,....
1
1
•
4 2.08
1
i
If, after reasonable effort, a contract cannot be nezotia:ed within
available funds, the negotiations with the selected firm shall be
terminated. ine firm will be requested to submit in writing a best
and final offer and the selection committee will move nec_tiat,ons
to the next hichest accumulated "total points" firm. This will
continue until a mutually satisfactory contract is achieved t
this time the other two firms from Step B will be notified in
writing and thanked for their interest in the project.
The selection committee's membership will consist of the City
Manager (or representative), the Finance Director, the invoived department
heaas, any board members wishing to serve, and any other cersons no:
involved in any way with any organizations submitting prezosals (who
are appointed by the Board). The selection committee merpership may be
changed by the Board of Directors.
4. Contract Award and Details:
The selection committee will recommend, after r.epo:L-.:ons and
review by the City Attorney and Finance Director, the mos: advantageous
Contract to the Board for awarding.
If the scope of the project is substantially than:ed, a new
proposal will be solicited before any additional work is The
"maximum not to exceed clause" will then be amended on :^e cqn :,ragt a':or
approval by the Board.
1
5. Professional Project Evaluations:
Upon completion or termination of a contract, the dePar:.-ent head
responsible for the project will submit a summary evaulation of :he pro-
fessional firm's handling of the project to include the following data:
(a) name of professional firm
(b) date of contract and date of co:.pletion
(c) cost as stated in initial contract, amount paid, and -e--son
for any difference
(d) special strengths exhibited by Professional firm
(e) problems or weaknesses in professional firm's handling of the project
(f) adherence to time schedule by the professional firm
(g) names of key personnel working on the project and comments
on their adequacy
The summary evaluation will be submitted to the City .e.. --era ., r..2view
and comments and tnen filed in the City Clerk's records. A cc-•: hill pe
sent to the Professional firm. Written comments received from professignal
firm regarding :ne evaluation will be filed in the City Clerk's r_cprgs.
•
•
•
2.09
NATE 1: Minor contracts, 55,000 and below, shall nave the involved Deoart7:ch:
Head and City Manager choose the most advantageous organization
after receiving price quotations and negotiations of the price.
Contract will then be reviewed by City Attorney and Finance Director
and recommended to the Board.
•
1
1
1
1
i
--4
M
0)
2C -
CD (D
CU
M
(D
(D
Z
N
0
Q
13)
M
0
M
N
0
m
(D
0_
CD
(D
0
0
0
-o
0
CU
CU
FLlel PuoaaS *
Le201 Puea9
m c C-) CO
D D D 11 11
vvv m .0
m -i x c
�. 01 0 -n a -0 m
f1 .+v 0 (D
(D O Z Z O �•
van
(D (Dv m (D
▪ O- (D 3 0
- A (D c+ m
Oa -HI m -
-5 (D o. 0
• Z 0
Pi 3 a 0 3
3 0 m 0 Cr ti
(
• Q3 a (D
ID -0
O D (D -0 3
- (D O
(D Z -S
0_ 3 M (D
O ( O
▪ (DD S m
e 0 -
LCD m
CU 0. 0
0 • 0 3
o 0-
, -5
F (] 0
CV
til
m 0 0
• O• IIW
C J01
0
0
z
m
a
0
M
m
ALlel puooaS
(J1
0
0
W
(J1
W
N
W
O
O
CW
Ul
(Lean;9nS) LZb =
N
(n
N
O
N
O
O
N
W
C..
0
z
N
O
z
N)
U1
N.)
O
N)
O
O
N
O
N
cn
N
O
N
N
N
U1
N
O
N
(n
N
O
N
(n
N
O
N
O
O
N
x
z
v
CTI
N
O
N
U1
N
O
N)
O
01
0
0
01
O
N)
0
N
0
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
01
O
(J1
N
O
C1
O
W
O
O
01
O
N
O
CT1
0
(n
0
S3Id0931V3
S3I21093100
Attachment
B-1
0
N
1-4
✓
r
A003 Q 31013W