Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN JUL 12 1983 REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF BEAUMONT HELD JULY 12, 1983 BE IT REMEMBERED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont , Texas, met in regular session this the 12th day of July, 1983, with the fol- lowing present : HONORABLE: William E. Neild Mayor Bill Cox Councilman, Ward I Evelyn M. Lord Councilman, Ward II Joseph D. Deshotel Councilman, Ward III Wayne Turner Councilman, Ward IV Karl Nollenberger City Manager Hugh Earnest Asst . City Manager Lane Nichols Asst . City Attorney Myrtle Corgey City Clerk -000- The Invocation was given by the Reverend Ed Granger , St . Andrews Pres- byterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Neild. -000- The following Consent Agenda items were considered: Approval of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held June 28 , 1983 ; Resolution 83-240 reappointing Hilda Lopez and Joe Wilson to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Activity Committee, terms expir- ing May 31 , 1985; Elmer Ashcraft to the Airport Advisory Committee, term expiring May 31 , 1985; and appointing Marilyn Johnson to the Senior Citi- zens Advisory Committee, term expiring September 30, 1985; Resolution 83-241 accepting two easements for sanitary sewer lines serving Office Park Plaza from Patrick Henry Phelan and Michael Arthur Phelan; Resolution 83-242 accepting portions of Taft Street and Ridgeland Avenue and water and sewer improvements in Calder Highlands Extension; Resolution 83-243 accepting Limerick Drive from Shakespeare Drive approxi- mately 680 feet west and water and sewer improvements in Lots 25-32, Block 35 and Lots 21-27 , Block 36, Dowlen West Addition, Unit XXII ; Resolution 83-244 letting a contract with Hollywood Crawford Door Sales in the amount of $1,480. 00 for furnishing and installing an overhead se- curity door in the main pumping station at the Water Reclamation Plant ; Resolution 83-245 authorizing the purchase of 50,000 citation forms for traffic violations for Municipal Court from Control Graphics Corp. , in the amount of $2, 279. 50; and Resolution 83-246 accepting a portion of Glen Meadow Lane and water and sewer improvements in Lots 5-6, Block 2; Lots 4-6, Block 4 and Lots 1-3 , Block 5, Park Meadows Addition , Unit V. The Consent Agenda was approved on a motion made by Councilman Deshotel and seconded by Councilman Turner. Question : Ayes : All Nayes: None -000- -105- July 12, 1983 Resolution 83-247 authorizing execution of a contract with Troy Dodson Construction Company for the asphalt surfacing of the equipment and em- ployee parking areas at the new Service Center on Lafin Drive in the amount of $56, 235. 00 was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Councilman Deshotel . Question : Ayes: All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 83-248 authorizing purchase of work uniforms from Shepherd Linen Supply in the amount of $39, 388 . 75 was approved on a motion made by Councilman Deshotel and seconded by Councilman Turner. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 83-249 authorizing execution of agreements with . M. L. Lefler, Jr. , and Jack C . Aulbaugh for appraisal services for right-of-way ac- . quisition for the Crockett Connector TIP Project was approved on a motion made by Councilman Cox and seconded by Councilman Lord. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Ordinance No. 83-75 providing for the August 13 city special election to be conducted jointly with an election called by County Commissioners Court on dissolution of the Beaumont Independent School District was con- sidered : ORDINANCE NO. 83-75 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A JOINT ELECTION WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY ON AUGUST 13 , 1983 ; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERA- BILITY. The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and secon- ded by Councilman Cox. Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- A resolution authorizing the purchase of a wheel tractor-loader for the Water Reclamation Plant was deferred one week for additional information. -000- Resolution 83-250 approving city participation in the cost of construct- ing a 1 , 320-foot section of Crow Road, north of Delaware, as a residential collector street , in the approximate amount of $60,838 .80 and authorizing execution of contracts with W. T. Little, Developer, and Kohler & Kohler , Consulting Engineers, for necessary engineering services was approved on a motion made by Councilman Turner and seconded by Councilman Lord. Question : Ayes : All Nayes: None -000- Ordinance No. 83-76 allowing an increase in the rates which Amoco Gas Com- pany charges Amoco Production Company was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 83-76 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING RATES CHARGED BY AMOCO GAS COMPANY TO AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY TO BE INCREASED BY OPERATION OF LAW AS PROVIDED IN THE STATEMENT OF INTENT FILED BY AMOCO GAS COMPANY WITH THE CITY OF BEAUMONT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. -106- July 12, 1983 The ordinance was approved on a motion made by Councilman Deshotel and se- conded by Councilman Cox . Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 83-251 accepting as completed the work performed under a con-. tract with Mar-Len, Inc . , for construction of Phase I of the Fannett Road Outfall Drainage Project and authorizing final payment to the contractor in the amount of $22 , 315. 05 was approved on a motion made by Councilman Lord and seconded by Councilman Deshotel . Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 83-252 approving a request by A.R.A. Services, Inc . , for ap- proval of an increase in the target price of $269, 220. 00 for the second year (_October 1 , 1983 through September 30, 1984) of its three-year con- tract for operating the central garage was approved on a motion made by Councilman Turner and seconded by Councilman Lord. Question : Ayes : Mayor Neild Nayes : Councilman Councilman Cox Deshotel Councilman Lord Councilman Turner -000- Resolution 83-253 ratifying an agreement with Hardin County, Jefferson County and Orange County for establishment of a Private Industry Council for South East Texas under the Jobs Training Partnership Act was approved on a motion made by Councilman Deshotel and seconded by Councilman Turner. Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- The public hearing on dilapidated structures was held. Mr. George Gardner, Director of Urban Rehabilitation Division, told Coun- cil that all the below-listed structures are in violation of Article III , Sections 14-50 and 14-51, of the Dangerous Structures Ordinance of the City of Beaumont , Texas, and that all notification procedures have been met . 3390 ECTOR - James A. Bodin, owner (8 violations) , recommendation to raze or repair within 30 days; 1745 ELGIE - C. D. Byrd, owner (14 violations) , recommendation to raze or repair within 30 days; 1010 FINIS - Herbert Dor- sey, owner (16 violations) , recommendation to raze within 30 days; 12021ST STREET - J. R. Williamson, owner (10 violations) , recommendation to raze or repair within 30 days. The structures listed below have been condemned by the City Council and the owners ordered to either repair or raze the structures within speci- fied time frames. Reinspection of these properties have revealed noncom- pliance with the Council' s order. The Code Enforcement Department requested authorization from Council to demolish these structures in accordance with the City Codes and charge the property owners with the cost of this demolition. The structures are located at : 999 Avenue E, 1074 Long, 1290 S. Major Drive (Residence and Garage) , and 745 Schwarner. Mr. I . Gonzales, owner of the structure located at 999 Avenue E, addressed Council to request an additional 45 days to complete the demolition of the structure. Mr. Wallace Debes, owner of the structures at 1290 S. Major Drive, addressed Council to request additional time to allow for boarding and securing of the residence. There being no further business, the public hearing was closed. -107- July 12, 1983 Recommendations for the structures located at 3390 Ector, 1745 Elgie, 1010 Finis and 120 21st Street were approved on a motion made by Council- man Deshotel and seconded by Councilman. Cox. Question. : Ayes : All Nayes : None Ordinance No. 83-77 declaring certain dilapidated structures to be public nuisances and requiring their repair or removal was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 83-77 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE FINDING CERTAIN STRUC- TURES TO BE PUBLIC NUISANCES, AND ORDERING REPAIR OR DEMOLITION; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. Councilman Lord made a motion to approve the ordinance as written with the exception of 999 Avenue E which should be provided a 45-day extension prior to any demolition; motion was seconded by Councilman Deshotel . Question : Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Councilman Lord again mentioned awaiting the resum6 concerning change orders; spoke about freezing temperatures in City Hall ; and receipt of calls concerning trash collections . Mayor Neild expressed his concern for the many fires at Hollywood Village and asked reconsideration of the Council ' s committment to the 6-month ex- tension from condemnation/demolition to the owners of this complex and the problems with rescinding that decision. Mr. Nichols, Asst . City Attorney, said the matter would have to be looked into more closely but unless the City has contractural obligations made on the basis of the extension, it might provide some potential liability; but for public health, safety and welfare of the citizens, the period of time might be reduced if it were reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. Councilman Deshotel questioned the opening of the Sarah Street project . He was told there is a problem of acceptance of the street and possible litigation of that project because it was not constructed in accordance with City plans and specifications but that solutions were being sought to rectify the problem. -000- Mr. J. C. Leggett , 1849 Washington Blvd. , addressed Council to express his concern for the number of drunk drivers, high grass in the City and a dilapidated overhead sign at the railroad overpass on College Street . Mr . Johnny Duggan, International Union representative for public workers of Jefferson, Orange and Hardin Counties, addressed Council to encourage continuous scrutiny of A.A. R. Services, Inc. and other contract-for-ser- vices companies. -000- There being no further business, the meeting was recessed before continu- ing with the City Council Workshop Session. -000- I , Myrtle Corgey, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont , Texas, certify that the above is a true copy of the minutes of the regular City Council ses- sion held July 12, 1983. Myrtle Corgey City Clerk -108- July 12 , 1983 EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 KARL NOLLENBERGER, CITY MANAGER: The next item, Your Honor, is a resolution approving a request by ARA Services, Inc. for approval of an increase for the second year of its third year contract operating the Central Garage. As you know, we've been under contractural agreement with ARA for the last nine months and this takes . . . this is for a contract beginning October 1st, 1983. I 've asked Hugh Earnest, the Assistant Manager and contractural officer for the ARA agreement to go into more detail with the City Council on this issue. HUGH EARNEST, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: I 'll stand since it's hard to see me over there. Thank you, Mr. Nollenbergei . The contract that we are operating under, as the Council well knows, was executed in August of last year and signed in September. Essentially, as I think I have been quoted as saying, we have a long way to go and I think ARA generally agrees with this with respect to the quality of service that we are getting in some areas as well as poor record keeping and some excessive down time. Improvement has been made in all of these areas. The management of this contract, as you well know, is a difficult and time-consuming effort. I still say that improvement has been made and I would expect substantial improvement in the second year and third year of this contract. The bottom line, I guess, in this is on the attachments and that is that essentially ARA is living within the budget figures that they presented as a part of their budget preparation . . . as a part of the bid preparation that we went through in August of last year. They are, through six months of this year, some $43 ,000 over what they estimated that they would be. Overall, through six months, the City in this activity is some $18,000 over where we estimated where we would be and that includes other expenses such as fuel, ultilities, vehicles, etc. so that overall from a management standpoint, we are operating essentially within 'the dollar amounts that we estimated. Now, with respect to the high percentage increase ARA is requesting for next year, it generally relates to the fact that they are expecting, and I think have experienced this year, sharply higher parts costs than they had originally estimated. They are also estimating that they will be required to a) hire several more people next year and b) begin something that they very badly rkeed to do and that is a training program and increase the quality of their personnel by instituting a certification program as they said they would do in the contract year and thirdly both their target prices increased because of the increase in their administrative fee and also because of higher supply costs that are necessary for the operation of this facility. All of the increases are acceptable only in the light in r, my opinion that when you gauge it against what we had originally estimated our anticipated operational expense to be for FY 83 , which was right at $3,000 ,000 . Taken in that light, I think that the percentage increase is reasonable insofar as you gauge it against what we would project our expense to be if we were operating in '84, then the difference is still reasonable. I would EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 2 MAR. EARNEST continued: not support over the life of the contract this percentage increase across the three years. WILLIAM E. NEII�p, MAYOR: Anyone have any questions of Mr. Earnest? JOSEPH D. DESHOTEL,, COUNCILMAN. WARD III: Yes, I have some questions. For instance, on the parts prices, I don't understand why if a department sends a vehicle in we that department is billed for whatever parts are used to repair the vehicle. So, why are we purchasing parts for their inventory and then purchasing parts . . . the same part again when we have it put on an automobile, or is that not correct? What is this money that is going for parts? MR. EARNEST: Councilman, we own nothing in effect. The inventory is owned by ARA so that there is no double purchase. All we -are doing is we are passing through that cost to the line department. When we moved from operating a Central Garage, we also moved from operating a Central Inventory Store so all you are seeing is a pass through of that particular part, whatever it is, and it is billed back to the department. MAYOR NEILD: For record keeping purposes? MR. EARNEST: Yes. f MR, NOLLENBERGER: The original purchase to put in the inventory was not charged to the City. Only when it's actually put on a vehicle is it charged to the City. MR, DE,SHQ,TEL: Of this $270 ,000 which represents over a one cent tax increase against our tax base, what . . . I 'm still not following that on the parts. What percent of that goes into parts for ARA? EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 3 MR. EARNEST: On attachment two, Councilman, you see that reading across in 1983 City of Beaumont, we estimated that we would spend $898,000 in parts. ARA, per their bid, for 1983 , estimated they would spend $487 ,000. ARA now says, and it is substantiated by records that we keep that they furnish to us on a monthly basis, that they will spend some $635,000 in their contract year 1984. This year, for instance, they estimate, and you notice through six months they had spent $312 ,000, their estimate for this year is $645,000 so that, really, honestly, what they are doing is reflecting a more realistic expense with respect to the parts that they are going to place on the some 700 vehicles that they maintain for us. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: Well, the way I see it, and I am missing something I suppose, is that we are increasing our contract with them in order that they can purchase additional parts, is that correct? MR. EARNEST: They are estimating that it would take that amount of material to be placed on City vehicles but they purchase . . . .they purchase the parts and are then reimbursed by us. As Mr. Nollenberger said, there is no double purchase. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: Will they purchase it with the increased allocation out of the $70 ,000 . . . ? MR. EARNEST: Yes, sir. Year sir. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: w . . . and then again when an automobile goes in, that also comes out of the City budget to have that automobile repaired, is that correct? MR. EARNEST: There is a charge for a part and then there is a later charge for salaries, yes, sir. i EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL , SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 4 MR, NOLLENBERGER: But, it is not a double charging if that's what you are thinking, Councilmember, it's just a single charge for that part. MAYOR NEILD: And, they did in 1983 guarantee their bid except for abuses, and what have you, is that correct, Hugh? MR, EARNEST: Yes. The line item that is carried as reimburseable, is our acceptance of the fact that it is not fair to ask anyone to anticipate anything relating to an accident or conscious act of vehicle abuse. MR. NOLLENBERGER: When you say guarantee, though, Mayor, the target price that's listed in there is the price which they bid but if costs exceed that, we pick up 70 percent of the excess up to $11198,000 which is the maximum annual cost. MAYOR NEILD: Okay, we pick up 70 percent? MR. NOLLENBERGER: . . . 70 percent of anything over the target price up to the $1 ,198,000. At that point . . . MAYOR NEILD: . . .not to exceed a certain amount? MR. NOLLENBERGER: That's right, and then, after that, it 's their cost. If they go underneath the $1,050,000 , they save thirty cents on each dollar they go under that month. MAYOR NEILD: All right, so if . . . an example`.would be if they reach the $645,000 parts expense that they anticipate they would for 1983 , we would . . . the City would reimburse them what? EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 5 MR. NOLLENBERGER: Seventy cents on the dollar up to the maximum annual cost. Mme, EARNEST: Up to the total maximum, 'not by line item; The total maximum of $1 ,050 ,900 . MAYOR NEILD• So, $635. . . MR. NOLLENBERGER: The maximum is $1,198. . . MAYOR ME&: So, $645,000 is what you anticipate they would be for 1983 and they bid $487 ,000 , so that's about a $158,000 overrun and we would pay seventy cents on the dollar of that? MR. NOLLENBERGER: As long as they do not exceed the $11198,000 in total which is parts and salaries and general administrative expenses, so they have that maximum built in. We pay seventy percent between $1 ,050,900 and $1,198,000 . MAYOR NEILD: So we are picking up $110,000 and they are picking up roughly $48,000, they are having to eat $48,000 in parts. MR. EARNEST: Yes, sir. EV.ELXN M. LORD,. CQUNCILMANx WARD II : So that the total picture is still that they are comiav in and doing it cheaper than we were doing it ourselves. MR. EARNEST: That's correct. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 6 MAYOR NEILD• Because we were having some underruns. COUNCILMAN LORD: . . .but there is something that does bother me a lot on this, when we are talking about these numbers and how they have used, you know, significantly more than they had projected for themselves and that 's in your second paragraph on your comment. The excessive downtime is one thing, but you say poor record keeping and work quality and I don't think we should tolerate poor record keeping and work quality and if we have poor record keeping, how do we know that these numbers that we' re coming up with are correct? And, I don't really look forward to seeing any big surprises in this area so I would certainly give us a caviat and say let us not tolerate any poor record keeping or work quality if we are going forward in this direction. MR. EARNEST: I 'd like to speak to both of those because the poor record keeping is a criticism of not only ARA but also of some slowness that we have had in giving them the total tool that they need with respect to a completed usage with respect to our computer system so that the criticisin. is intended to be a double-edged sword, Mrs. Lord. COUNCILMAN LORD: Well, it's just the thing that may be booby-trapped that may be build in there. MR. EARNEST: Yes, ma'am. I totally agree with you. The poor record keeping then causes some problems in work quality because you are not able to analyse as adequately as I think we should be able to what we are doing in each vehicle. MAYOR NEILD: And the monthly activity reports in trying to get that vehicle maintenance on line has been a difficult chore. Hugh, what . . . along the salary ends, could you address how many additional employees they intend to add with this amount of money, that's $78,000. Is that salary increases or is that a combination of salary increases and additional employees? w EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 7 MR. EARNEST: I would think it would be primarily a case of salary increases as they get into a training program and a certification program they have to have some way built in there to be able to award the employees. The standard procedure is that if you get a patch as a certified mechanic, you get either 10 or 15 cents an hour. The second part of that is that in this contract year hopefully we are going to be moving to our new Service Center and they will take on some additional responsibilities with respect to painting of some of our vehicles and sandblasting so that there are some duties that are to be expected in that new location that were not required in this contract year. I can't give you a total breakout, $50 ,000 is going to this and $20 odd thousand is going to this because there are some unknowns right now. MAYOR NEILD: The reason I say is the percentage increase when we look at it from the standpoint of what we are facing with having to do for ourselves, it bothers me. MR. NOLLENBERG_ER: There was a long discussion on staff 's part also. G. WAYNE TURNER,, COUNCILMAN, WARD_y; Let me lengthen the discussion a little bit and that would be in reference to the administrative increase, Hugh. I guess everybody on Council has seen a little something different to ask a question about but that above all else seems to me to be one of the most questionable. Understanding the nature of parts and inventory and second guessing the requirements and also understanding the increased complement and the training involved, I am not sure what all is general other than administrative. Could you explain that one for me. MR. EARNEST: I sure can. This is their breakout sheet that they provide . . that is provided to breakout by cost centers, ARA's cost centers, that ARA fee amounts next year to $94,000. That is a management fee, pure and simple management fee. The $140,750 is gotten by a compilation of some ten line items that amount to $46 ,950 . . . $750 - r. that 's things like general insurance, telephone, office supplies, uniforms and laundry, those type of general expenses that they had no way of projecting in a year in which they were bidding long range but the significant increase, quite frankly, is a management fee increase of $63. . . to $94. . . so the principle increase in there is a management fee increase. w EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 8 MAYOR NEILD: What you are needing is some direction from the standpoint of being able to put budgets together, is that correct? MR. NOLLENBERGER: Yes. What we are recommending is that the Council authorize the second year of the three year contract with those contractural figures in it. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: If I recall on this contract, it gave 25 percent over the target, is that correct? There was a base target. . . MR. EARNEST: 20 percent, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: And, how much of an increase total is this increase here, 15.3 over the . . . ? MR. EARNEST: That's a total increase of what the City expects to spend in 183 adding ARA's expense and the City expense. Am I making myself clear? MR. NOLLENBERGER: That's total cost. The first top of that page which says category and it comes down to target price, that's the ARA contract. The bottom half is not under contractural service, the portion that says fuel, utilities, vehicles - that's us directly. The top half is the other. If you look, for instance, ARA 1983 where it says target price $1,0501950, the upset figure of 20 percent that you were talking about is the $1,198,000 - that 's 20 percent above $1 ,050. . . r. COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL: What's the 25.6 percent increase? w - EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 121 1983 page 9 MR. NOLLENBERGER: That's the increase in the ARA target price contract. MR. EARNEST: From one year to the next, in other words, from 183 to what is requested and recommended for 184, . that's the 25 percent. MAYOR NEILD: So, that it was 20 percent upset within the year of the contract, not 20 percent from one year to the next. MR. EARNEST: That 's correct. MR. NOLLENBERGER: Because the next year, 184 , you will still have the 20 percent upset figure of $1 ,320 ,000 up to $1 ,584,000. MAYOR NEILD: I think the only thing I would say is that I think we pretty well felt that when we received ARA's bid, one, that they were desirous of the business very badly and that they, to some extent, probably bid it to get it and we reckoned that they would be coming back to us to try to generate the business that they thought was really there. I would suspect that my initial reaction would be that they could be a lot worse but that I think the only way that we can really determine whether they are doing the job is to give them more than one year and that we will need to look at this very closely after a second's years operation after they have had an opportunity to shake out the problems that we supposedly had when they took over and to give it areal test that we are going to need to ride it for another year even with these concerns that we are expressing here today. MR. NOLLENBERGER: I would agree with you wholeheartedly. Nine months is a trial basis. That's really a fairly short period of time to try to shake down the operation so I agree wholeheartedly and that became a major basis of our recommendation to you to move forward. i EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 121 1983 Page 10 ' COUNCILMAN DESHOTEL.: I understand that they probably in the bid process, they wanted to get the bid for the City but I also feel that this organization is experienced enough and large enough to avoid some of these cost increases and to just now beginning to start a training program and things of this nature that I don't feel that the City should bear the total economic burden that organization has brought upon itself. I think in the bid process, knowing what they were up agianst, bidding what they bid, that we shouldn't make up that entire difference. I agree that we may make some new allocations. All the information that I have received that it is just about as bad as it was before they got here as far as production, getting vehicles out on time, downtime and these types of things. I do believe that nine months may not be enough time to totally work out all the problems but I don't think we should bear the entire. . . you know, just keep giving them money, letting them try to get their act together because I think they've been around long enough and knew when they made the bid that they were probably underbidding. and now to come back and try to make up the difference without them suffering and looking at our economic situation, I just can't support giving them the entire "$270,000. Now, maybe a lesser amount, we don't have enough information, I don't think as far as what improvements have the City realized other than the money we have saved. We could probably have saved that money by cut backs in personnel and had the same production level that we are receiving now so I don't know what aid they have been to the City from the information that I have received other than saving the money we could have saved probably without them. So, I just wanted to make that statement. MAYOR NEILD: Hugh, is it to assume that their requests were somewhat more than this and this has been a process of review or is this . . . . . . MR. EARNEST: Their requests were probably $100,000 higher than this when we first started. MAYOR NEILD: And you arrived at these numbers through a process of just head- knocking and . . . . , . MR. EARNES T: Yes, sir EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 11 MAYOR NEILD: Are there any other questions or comments? BILL COX, COUNCILMAN, WARD I: Hugh, are we going through the motions now of projecting what our 184 costs would have been? MR. EARNEST: The only thing that I have done, Councilman, is that you might just say for purposes of comparison and we have done no more than that is to take the $1,954,000 and add 5 percent to it and that 's not a very sophisticated method of projection because you would have hoped that, or I would have thought that in a year of us operating, we might have learned to operate it more efficiently ourselves so the only way that I can answer your question is to say the $1 ,954,000 that we had budgeted in 1983 is a basis for comparison and remains for one more year I think adequate basis for comparison but I don't think we can continue to use it next year for instance. COUNCILMAN COX: Boy, it' s going to be kind of tough if we don't have figures to either argue with their figures or substantiate other than actual cost. MR. EARNEST: Yes, sir. I think the discussion will of necessity center around things like percentage of vehicles with respect to downtime, quality of work, how many times a vehicle has had to go back for the same type of repairs. I think next year will be far more sophisticated and that we will all have, and I am talking about ARA and the City, a lot more information to discuss from. COUNCILMAN TURNER; The contract, Hugh, does it contain a clause whereby we might go out for competitive bid previous to the three years? MR. EARNEST: I don't think so. It contains the cancellation clause, obviously, but I don't believe it allows us to go out for competitive bid. I think we are committed for three years. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JULY 12, 1983 Page 12 COUNCILMAN TURNER: . . . or cancel? MR. EARNEST: . . . or cancel. COUNCILMAN TURNER: And the notification period? MR. EARNEST: There is a notification period. I would have to look . . . I think it ' s 30 . . . . . . FOR NEILD• It' s a short time. Any other questions of Mr. Earnest? Is there a motion. COUNCILMAN TURNE I so move. COUNCILMAN LORD: Second. MAYOR NEILD• It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor, say Aye. Opposed. (See response below) Ayes: Mayor Neild Nayes: Councilman Councilman Cox Deshotel Councilman Lord Councilman Turner r, END OF EXCERPT w