Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1979-09-19 Council Packet
Kenai City Council Meeting Packet September 19, 1979 Bo CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ~EPTEMBER 19, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. KE,~:AI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDI.~G P~ OF ALLEGIANCE AGEb'DA APPROVAL MINUTI~S 1. M~mte~ of the ~egul~r meeting of 8eptember S. 1979 2. Minutas of the ~peefal meeting of September 14, 1979 E. ~.~gJ~SPONDENCI~ F. OLD BUSINESS 1. Lease ofwerm sim. age faoflity for City of Kenal G. NEt~ BUSINESS I. Bflis to be paid - bills to !~ ratffied 2. Requlst~ons eA~edtng $$00 3. O~dinanee 534-79, amending Seotlofl 40, Title I of the 1979 Kmmd Code relating to the Kenat Fh.e Department 4. Ordinance 525-79, amending eertMn ~.-t~ons of Tftl~ 1, 2, 1~, 15, t 20 of the Code 5. O~dinanee 526-79, adopting the Code of the City of Ken~ 6. Reselu~to,~ 79128, Urging the S~to of Aiss]m to L,~was~e staffing of Distrfet' Attm. ney's off~ee on the Kenat Pe~tnsu~ 7. Resolution 79o128, 8eeepflng a g~mt from the State in the amount of $40,200 fc~ an ~dditlon to Po~t Kem~y 8. Re~olutton 79-I~0, transfer, lng ftwds in the amount of S2,O00/Ah.po~t 9o Re~olutton 79-1~1, establishing lndO~f~le~ fer Loeal Se~e Ro~d~ & Trafl~ Fund~ 10. Resolutin~ 79-155, ~oasentlng to pertial a~slgnment of .__a~._~_,~al gas f~nchise 11. 8peeisl Use Per. it - Wren Ah. Ah~ka 12. Submfsston of spplt~aflon by Reerastfon Commisstou reh~tve to Beaver Creek P~k I$. Peyment to CH~! Hill - Seweregr Pro~ee~ Dest,~t 14. Fln~ Pay Estimste - Wildwood Censtruetion, Ine./Ah~ska ¢on~trueters, ine./J.V. 15. Request fo;' I~ re',ah~ge - Nm-eon, Ins. 16. Discus~isn - Architect's p~oposal - City Hell Complex 17. Resolution 79-152, authorizing. Adm. to go out ftn. fore. al bids fo~ 18. lteselution 79-134. trznsfor of funds for ~en~l of warm ~to~age facility P~PORT$ I o C!:~* 2. City Attornay 3. Mayor 4. City Clerk 5. Finance Director 6. Planning & Zoning Commission ?. Peninsula Borough Assembly 9. Harbor Commission MAYOR & COUI~CIL ~ QUESTIONS AND COMMENT8 1. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ADJOURNMENT I I ! I r--- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4- ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL B. PUBLIC HEARINGS Co Do 1. Ordtnano~ $21-79, increasing estimated revenuea/appropriations in the 19711-90 State Jail Contract Fund in the amount of $3,600. 2. Ordinance 522-79, increasing emlmated revenues and ~pproprtations in the capit~l project *Airpm. t Runway Paving" in the amount of $65,000. 3. Ordinance $23-79o increasing estimated revenues and sr~prapriations in the 1979-80 General Fund & Airport Land System Fund Budgets in the amount of $37°560 to provide roi' the purchase of the City's Shop building by the General Fund. 4. Approval of transfer of beverage dispensary license for Daddy°s Money PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED '£0 BE HEARD 1..~.. and Mrs. CressweH MINUTItS 1. Minutes of the regulm, meeting of September $, 1979 2. Minutes of the ope~isl meeting of September 14, 1979 CORRESPONDENCE OLD BUSINESS 1. Lease of we~u sto~age facility for City of Kenat NE~V BUSINESS 1. Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified 2. Requisitions exceeding $500 3. O~dinanea 524-79, amending Section 40, Tiffs I of the 1979 Kenal Code relating to the Kanai Fire Department 4. Ordinance 525-79, amending certain sections of Titles 1, 2, 12, 15, & 20of ~he Code 5. Ordinance 526-79, adopting the Code of the City of Kenal 6. Resolution 79o128, Urging the State of Aleaka to increase staffing of Dist~et' Atforney's office on the Kenai Pe~issula 7. Resolution 79-129, accepting a grant from the Stats in the amount of $40,200 for an addition te Fort Keaay 8. Resolution 79-130, transferring funds in the m~ount of $2,000/Ah, po~t Land System 9. Resolution 79-131, establishing priorities for Local Service Reads & Trails Funds I0. Resolution 79-133, consenting to pa~lal assignment of natural gas franchise II. Special Use Pm'mit ~ Wien Ah' Alaska 12. Submission of application by Recreation Commission relative to Beaver Creek Pm.k 13. Payment to CH2M Hill - Sewerage Projects Design 14. Final Pw~. Bstinmte - $?fldwood Construction, Inc./Alaska Constructors, Inc./J .V. 15. Request for 10% reteinage - l~or~on, Inc. 16. Discussion - Architect's proposal ~ City Hall Complex 17. Resolution 79-132, authoriztn~ Adra. to ~o out for formsi bids for warn t storaee ~ 18. Resolution 79-134, transfer of funds for rental of warm storaf~efsetlity i~PORTS - I. City Manager 2. City Atterney 4. City Clerk . 5. Finanoe Director 6, Planning & Zoning Comrois~lon 7. Poninsula Borough Assembly 8. llarbor Commission ~DJOU Pd~,7£NT COUNCIL ~ET.ING OP September 11, 1979 CITY OF KENA! P. O, 80X S80 K£NAI. ALASKA 996li TELEPHONE 283 - 7~35 MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Keith Kornelis, Director of Public Works Selection of Architect £or"New-Kenai City Hall The City of Kenai is accepting proposals from Architects for the design of the new City Hall. These proposals should be submitted prior to September 14, 1979 at 5 p.m. The Administration will organize the proposals in an order!y £ashion and deliver them to Council at the September 19th City Council meeting. I recommend that the Public Works Committee review each of the proposals. If there arc many proposals submitted, it might be desirable, for the Public Works committee to narrow down the proposals to three. These three firms could then submit their proposals alOhg'wxth a presentation from their firm to the Council as a whole. The Council could then make their decision as to who they want to do the work. Attached are three articles that may be of some help in deciding the procedures for selecting this Architect. It might be a good idea for the Council to discuss the procedure to use for the selection at this upcoming September 19th Council meeting. gK/jet Attachment A Recommended Procedure For Selecting a Professional Planning Consultant PREAMBLE, ~rr, spective clienf.'~ se.king profe,';~ional planning services from consuIl- inn firms are sometimes perplexed as to what procedures c, hould be tel:owed in order fo assure the selection of a qualifind firm However, Ihe proC.4.',sr, of choosing a planning consulting firm is similar to lhat of seeking engineering or architectural services. Proper procedureS, in the selection of a planning hrm can help the client avoid wauted motion and common pilfall.~ in contracl negolialion9 and execution. Note that nothing in lhese guidehno~ shall be construed fo prohibit a client from negotiating with a ..,ingle consulting firm. This procedure appli~ equally to contraclual relationships belween public agencies and tho:~e between public agencie~ and private enterprise. A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. The fo:rowing basic procedural steps are recommende,; as an ethical, buSine;s-hl~e, and sy..,lematic approach fo lhe fa.';k of select- lng a planning firm. 1. Define fha nature of lhe planning work or development problem sufflcicnlly fo permit proper choice of con~ullanfs to be. considered for lhe work. ~, Con- sider lhe (ler~eral quahhcalions of a number of firms which appear to be capable of muefing Ihe requirement~ of fha assigr, ment. The size of P:e planning firm is not an indication of competence or suitability for th~ particular planning work or project being considered. (A commumty or private orgamzahon which needs he~p in identifying sources of planning consulhng services may obtain info;malign from the American Institute of Planners. the Amer;can $oc~ely of Consullmg Planners or the official planning assistance agency in ifs stale ) $o Choose for ~nlerview.,~ one or more (preferably nol more than ihree) flrmf, which are I~nl~';v~;d fo lis lhe b~sl q~ahhed 4. I~der¥~ew lbo selected f,fins separalely, explaminq fully Ih;, propo=c'd as~qnmenl ,~nd Ih;; s~lecliOn proCedure Io be followed. Carefully exami~ lhe quahf~cah;~.~ of each fir~ by inlerviewmg nol ~re lhan one al a hmo. sChedulm~ af lea,at an hour lot each inf~fwew and spacing interviews Io allow adequale time for dehb~rahon off ~ach firm T~ke ~nlo accolJnl especially lbo followin0 cfiferfa: (A) Ex~fl~eo and Repu~u~, C,nc~ plam~ I~robl~m~ axe usually very complex, il ~5 e~serd~al lhaf lbo SI;ertl he fulJy ~,al*,;h(,;J lhal lhe latin ho5 had a yaried ex~,t~oflco. This planning. I~ ellh~:f a ~:oftf,ullm~j uf piJhl~c pl;Jflfllfl(j ;if~oflcy f.,3p;tcdy ~5 a rehabto ~oufce r)f kf,r~.-how in the plennin0 held wher(~ 5uccu,;s may depend upon Ihe apphcahon of (bi Background ~ Pet~nael Available. A p~nl~s~lor~al pl~nnmg education on Ihs parl of p~fsor,nql Io be a~51f~R(,d ~ im[~)rfanf. I~ut lhl5 ~hould riel be the exclusive cdfenon used m selectmn Many professionals tn allied fields such as architecture, engi- neering, social or ~oht~cal science have achieved a high level of excellence in planning on fha strenglh of many years of relevant experience. Impressive academic credentials alone ~n allied fields, wtlhou! planning experience, usually Should eel be considered a substitute for such experience. ICJ Wo~loed, Repulable hrms do eel overload their staffs w~th responsibilily for more projects than they can comfo,'l~bly discharge. Frequently, at the time of the selection process, lhe clienl has no conlrol over the precise time when the program will s~3rl. This is especially tree in federally-assisted programs, where the time ga~) between app:oval of the program and aulhorizalion lo proceed can sometimes exceed one year. Therefore, unless the prOgram is Io commence immedia!ely. Ihe clienrs besl assurance lhal the proper slaff will be available al the appointed lime is lhe firm's reputation for promptness of performance and effectiveness of work (dj Availability of All Required Raids ~f Expertise, Complex planning programs may require special expertise which a given firm may prefer lo subcontract or perform in association with another. In such instances, the ava~lab~lily and reputation of all sub- contractors or associate team members should be as carefully considered as thai of the principa! conlracIor. (e) Profe~sioeal Re~l~OnllbilJlyo Membership of at le{~st one of the firm's principals in the American Institute of Planners. or of the firm as a whole in the American Sociely of Consulting Planners. offers assurance that the firm's conduct is governed, by a strict Code of Professional Responsibility {I) F4al F, mpleitmenl Re~ix~,~ibilil,/, Reputable firms encourage and provide equal oppo~lunities of eroployment for (~uahhed women and members of all minority groups. S, L~st the firms you have in!erviewed in order of desirability, based on capabllily for carrying oul the assignment. 6o ,~onlacl your first choice and agree upon a detailed pro- §ram of work and a mutually safisfaclorf fee This should be the first t;me there is arty discussion of fee 7, In the evenl Ihal il is found impossible to agree upon the work pro- gram, foe or olher conlract de!ails, nolify the firm in writing that negotiations are being disconlinued. Then begin negotiation with the next firm on the list ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, Some pilfalls exist thal can stall or f,,,strate negotiations. Once recognized, they can be readily avoided. Here are four examples: t, Avotd Nl~u lalen~le~l: It is possible !o inlewiew too many consulting firms The proper use of pre-interview selection lechniques will enable Ihe client Io interview a few qualified consulting firms in deplh and provice sufficient data for a sound ",,election decision. A successful pre-interview selection process should provide consulting firms an opportunity to submtl information which would explain the nature and extent of services, innovative approaches, if any, and availabilily for future work In order for such information to be mo~t relevanl Io the clienl's problems, a shorl prospectus describing the problem or lhe proposed planninq program should be made available to all prospective consullants. The client should also make eve~/efforl to delermine Ihe experience of prior clients wilh consullanl~ being considered. ~- Avoid Coro~eltllve Bidding: Clients are advised not Io deprive themselves of com- petent professional assistance by insisting on a bid in compehbon with others. Competi- lion Is desirable; but il should be on the basis of professional competence and experi- ence. Specific work assignments and fees should be dis~;u~sed only after a consultanl is selected. This should not be deemed to preclude lhe consultant from cibng cos! axe parlance elsewhere on projects of similar magmtude and complexily or froro discussing a likely cost range, it being underslood Ihat the final cost w~ll be a function of the final scope of serwces agreed upon. tf the chant ~s subject to budgetary restraints, he should ma~e inem known to all pre-selectuo consullants. ~e wary of planners offenng "loss- leader sen~ces." discounls, rebates, or any olher form of cut-rate pricing of professional plannin~ services. ~, Avoid Non-Written Agreeroenls: For lhe protection of bolh c!ienf and firm. the client should always execule a written aqre,,,~rnenl w.lh a plannmcl consullinq firm. As a mini- mum. this aqreemenf should sp~ciiy the work. to be dq~e Although special demands of the consullmq firm may arise durinq the course of a work program, the firm r~nnol be e~cled Io do work ouls~de of ils contract w,l~ the cheni units the ~nlract fee is amended accordinqly 4, Avid P~al~ Clau~ Pe~o~ B~ or O~ ~lled "l~flve" F~ ~r~: Th~ are unn~essa~ pr~is~ons in a prof~s,onal serv~ agreement. Such d~ic~ can provoke a reduction in the quality of sewi~ Io tho client and ~la~ em~h~is u~n l~s ~,n~dant ~p~s of the agreement. MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY. The chant has his responsibilities in the seleclion and hmng of a planmng consulting fi~'m as oulhned here. Equally ~mportant to the client. however, is the professional obligation of the planning consulting hrm tO ~ed'orm its work competently, in a professional manner and with a sense of soc~ responsibility. Tl~e American Institute of Planners and lhe American Society of Consulting Planners govern the ethical conduct of their members thrnugh their Codes of Professional Responsibility. Services and Fees of a Professional Planning Firm PREAMBLE. The purposes of lhJs section are to: (1) promote a better u,lderstanding between the client and the planning consulting firm as to the nature of services tO be rendered and melhods of determining fees for such services; {2) reduce the variation of methods used in calculafinq fec~,; and [3) assist the client in understanding common methods the planmn9 firm uses in delermin~ng a fair value for ifs services. To these ende, fha major types o! planninq firm servic(..s ale outlined here. and consideration is given to fha ordinary faclors involw;d in r~r)mputinq a fee for such services that will be fair both tO the clienl and Io lhe planning consulting firm. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. l; ,s not possible to establish standard fee sched- utes to qovern fha charqes of professmnal planmn9 cons~jlhng hrms. Variables may be based on fha extent and breadth of a £onsulfanrs educat,on and experience as well ag on Ihe variety, quality and character of his work. A consultant w~th an eslablished reputation may demand h;gher fee~ than one less well known. A consullanf may be more compelen! in certain areas of prof~sm,al wo;k. or mo,e innovative, than others and may be worth h~gher fees because of the spe::ial serwces which he can render. The scale, complexity and Jmpodanc,~., of the work also w~ll be factors ~n charq~s of a consulting f~rm. The basic standard of com[;epsahon shoulU be the value of the ~lanning firm's services to the Client In ge.~eraL fees are b~sed on the scope and complexity of the work measured by the t,'ne cf profe'-,.4oPal personnel requi~ed to successft,lly COmplete II Ty~ of fl~nc~al arm~en~ ~ Prof~5~oflal felal~ fo physical. ~mal a~ e~m~c d~/etopm~f a~ Gf~ucfurm~ a work Oufl~nJflg fha kJnd~ of plaflnm, g aCfr~f[c~ lhat ~hould be ufl~na~efl fo ~al w~ fha i~sue~ fdenhfied. rang age~f~ in s~ffmg, or~an~z~q and ~eve~Dmq pf~fam$ fequ.ed to ~m/ our a include analyz~q d~welo~menl p'oblem~ m deDt~ ecfabl,chmg ODIeCf,'I~. ~h3~i~ aRer- prehenmve commumfy and ~q,onal plan~ ~ssu~ ag mlerg~e(r, rnenlal relal~on5 of federal a~ds. or ~I ~uld ~a~n to sp~ial fu~c- Itonal areas of concern al all gwemme~,f I~leJ$ feg., anney~on polic~, feac~bih~y slud~c~, busmesc area dc~elopment, job framing p~ogfams. Ig-lo-in.me hOuling and u~an ten.iai fif~ateg~, program..rlg and budgeting aspe~ of dcwelopme~l pro- gramc, and re~mmendal~ons on d~elopmenf code~ a~d umfied co.lrol such as n~z ~mmumh¢~. S~GDpI~g ~nlerm ~ll~e campus, irJduslrial pa¢~ u~an renewal and olhe. c[m,lar projectc pre~atmq cas~ m ~Onmr) and plannm~l-relaled developmenl hfiqal~on and ~n expeff lesl.no.y Whether work,fig for a pubhc or prwate chent, a kc~ element of fh~ ~rwces ~s lhe abd~ly of the consultmq f.m lo prowde adw~ based on an und¢~rst3nd- ing of ~mmur,Iy mfe.elabon~h~p5 lhal focus on pubhc pohcy dwelopment dems~ons. The range of ~¢'lices Which a f.m m ~n a posd~on lo prc-i~de wd~ depend c~5~ the d~sc~plines and ~Jxpef~nce encompas~/~d bV ~I~ personnel 1. Adm~m~l~ahDn for planmnq and 2 ~mp..hens~ve physical 3. Re,source dcwelopme~l. 4 Social plahnJng. 5. Ttanspodahon planmng O. Urban design. 7. Research melhodology 8. Ecnnom~c planmng 9 Fnvironmenl~l sciences planning I ~. Planmnq law. 12 P~ogramm~r,g and budqqtmg ' ~ ' I lill ............. i .... II. TYPrr~ CF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMEtI'r$, ;,*~ ~::,.'* ~-'~ ~"~'- '/ A Recommended Procedure For the Administration of the Request For Proposal (RFP) Process PREAMBLF., The f-ec~ra! qO/ecr, mer,t. ~ume ~ta~ and local go~/emments, as weft as sifter Ir,~Dl~c agencies c~.~ec! pro*feo~o.,',..a! ~',!ann~rtg conculfa~ts through the Request Prop, o'sa! (RFPJ prOgc~,s, In order fo ess~t pu~.~c a~e~cies u~ing this proc_,e.~s to obtain appropriate profe~s~ona! se~vic..eo and to he. iD them avoid pilfa!is in if~ admic;st;at~n, the Am~Can fn~,f~fute of Plannem CAIP) arid American Soc~eW of Consulting PJam~ers (ASCP) recommet~d the procedures which fo!lov/. Tile RFP prose~',,s is e-.~pecial!~ appropriate fl'~r u~e on tho~e occasions vdlere the pro° pOt, ed v/oft: program is fist c~eaqy defined or where governments and agencip,, have little kncn~,:,dge of those firrr~ v/nich would be be~ suited fo pefforrn the services. In such ca.ceo, the RFP becomea a good mechanism by which the p~blic agency can turn ~o a professional planni~Lg consultant firm rather than to its O~,~m agency for the p~eparao lion ~'f a detailed work program. It is the purpose of these procedures, therefore, to sug- ge0t how the professional planning con=utfar, t firm should be chosen and how public af.~encieo Can eliminate potential pdfaJla of (a) n(~l ha~:fig ~ufficient information tg evalu- a/e the capabd~!y si' plann~og consulting firms, [b) hayir~g inaccurate Or misleading form&lion about firms, and (c) basing the ce. lection of firrns on lacSors other than those whfch reflect their ab~ldy to do the wo~ It ohou!d bo made clear that. aifffouqh there are ddtere~ !y.:.-,~ <?f RFP'S, this recorn- mended procedure eddreo~eo d~it only to the adrnJnJsf~alJofl of RFP'6 which would nof- mallr be re~pondecl fo b'! planning con,~ultant UOF.~ A~II~I MISUSE8 OF THE RFP. A Request fop Proposal is an adrnmislratJve technique by v/nich an agency! ,,',eeks to clarffy and descri~ a wol'k program and identify profe~sJona! planning firrn~ which might §ahofacfonly perform the oefvfcas. When a C, fud¥ goes beyond the prc-t;ent orate st the ad and science of planning, the RFP may, be a particularly u~efu! dewce Not only can ~t aJd an agency to shape a work program, but. when approacmng fl,tv/or unusuall:/dJthcuJt problems, il can al~o enable an agency to request a single planning Consulting firm to bring together an interdisci- plinary team which iflclucleo all the Skirls requJrecf for the undeflalung of complex work programs. This focu~ re~ponsfbdsty for completion of such a program in a sfngle con° flavor rathof thai1 requiring the agency to let CeParate contracts for each poll!on of the vlO~ requiring the expertise of a separate d~r.,cipline ~n Casea involving less inflovatJve or Complex woffi programs, it v/ould be preferable for the agency staff to define the wOfk In c~rawmg up the R~-P. cam r,eed5 to be e^e,c,$ed lo absure that the select,on broces~ wd! be fa~dy admm~,tered The RFp should, for e/ample. ~denhff any firm or firms which have Dean revolved in the pt¢:~.,ara!~or, of all of a~.! pod:on of the RFP; and such f,rms ~hOuld be d~quahf~ed f;om re~nd,ng to tr,e RFP. or tO that po~l~on of d which they prepared. The firm which prepares an RFP is in an unfairly advantageous position to respond to il because of its intimate knowledge of what the agency is seeking and wilt accept. However'. n~thing should preclude the firm which prepared an RFP from ps,Iici- patton, under separate contract, in work supplemental/ fo that covered by the RFP, or in any portion of the total R~p work program which is specificalXy excluded from the response sought b~! fha agency. The RFP process may serve the agency's inlerests by encouraging consulting firms to compete with each olher on lhe basis of relalive creativity. Prior to retaining the services of a professional planning COnSulling firm. the agency should seek information which wilt atlow it lo judge all of lhe f~rm's relevant qualifications. The fJndamenlal componenls of this informalion are: 1o Crealivity: nature and calibre of ideas; innovation m approach to the problem; 2. Competence. capability shown by education and e.<perience credentials and quali- fications; ~1. Content: understanding of Ihe problem at hand and a relative and effective approach fo ifs solution; 4o Confidence: mutual professional trust and respect developed between lhe agency and firm; and ~. Cost: lowest cost commensurate with the quahly of the work. Of these five components, lhe only one which can be highlighted through competition for the agency's benefit is that of crealwity. A principat virtue of lhe RFP process is pre- cisely lhe fact that it does put a premium on crealivity. Every allempt should be made during ~he selection process lo conceal the identity of the responding firms until after lhe two or lhree besl work programs have been selected by the agency. To assure a fair assessme;-,l of a firm's qualifications, the agency's evalua. tots need fo be freed of any irrelevant knowledqe about a firm except that which is requesl¢~ in lhe RFP. Through the years, the Request for Proposal prncedure has been used in impottan! ways. Bul its misuses should also be recognized. 1'lie RFP sholJld NOT'- be used as a melhod of s,:ree.~.~r~ prof~,ssional planning con- sultants prior to multiple interviews. I! is unfair to ask a targa number of cortsulling firms, most of which will not even be chosen for intef¥iews prior to one being selected by lhe agency, lo spend valuable time and money responding to RFP's. Only those firms which are qenerally qualified to do Ihe anticipaled work should be asked to respond to the RFP. This does nol suggest prohibiting any consulting firm which wishes to respond Io an RFP from doing so. However. il is a responsibility of the agency lo ~dvi'~e consulting firms which fail*~d to pass initial screening lhat lhey have nol been chosen. The RFP ~heul~$ NOT'- be used 1o obtain free sludy designs and work programs from planning consulting firms. This may be considered a fraudulenl practice ncr 10 be con- doned by either public agencies or private firms An agency should determine in advance if ii will or will not use its own staff to do the work. If lhe agency staff will be used and will require assistance in preparing a sludy design and work prOgram, the agency should let confrec! for that bruited purpose onty. An agency may also wish to use a consulting firm to prepare its RFP's In both cases, such services should be sought and paid for by the agency in accordance with normal consullanl selection procedures. In summan/, tho RFP is a useful process for the c*?lecfion of consultant firms when the c~rcumstances described here are present But this process will nol realize ils inherent polential if it: *J. Flequ~res fee compeld~on belween hrms; 2. Requ~re= inordinate amounts of uncompensal*Jd hmo and expense in preparation; ~, Permits even Ihe appearance of camouflaging a pre-determined selection of a firm. or, 4. Permds agency evaluafors fo know the ~denf~ly of respondent firms prior tO their final selecllon of fha prospective contractor PREPARING AND EVALUATING THE RFP. The nFP procedure is intended aid fie public agency receive the best consulting planmng services. The agency can fake sl'eps which would greatly assure dself ot fha success of Ibis fechni~lue, both before the RFP is sent out. and. again, after if recewes repl~es from interested firms. Foremosl in the preparation of the RFP is the agency's understand,ns of the program ob;eclwes Responses will be capable of evaluanon only if lhe agency defines if~ ob- jechves through a rigorous process of program analysis; olherwise the replies may be irrelevant to the agency's needs.* Il is of ulmosf ~mpo~ance to the agency as well as the respondents thai RFP authors be quahfied by education and expenence fo prepare RFP's. From fha agency's standpoint, fha author needs fo h&ve a clear understanding of the program objectives when defining the nature and scope of the RFP. From lhe respondent's standpoint, Ihe more pre¢~.~ely def~,~ed the RFP. lhe more aSsurance the firm Can have that irs response, will be §ermane to the needs of Ihe agency. As;iurances need Id be given thal lhe procedures adopled for evaluating lhe responses are eqt~Jrable and fha selection process will be an open one Few consul~anls will spend a great deal of lime prepanng a response if the selection procedure is vague, or if f~le chances of getting the job seem fo be minimal. Even the most i~novafive consultants will either respond perfunctorily, ;'f at all. unless fha entire system for seleclion is clearly spelled ou: and assures fair compebhon. Any predetermined budgelan/ COnStraints need fo be r~-veafed in the RFP in order fo assure thai all submissions will be comparable in forms of scale. If the evaluation process will reject a priori any i~roposal which exceeds ceffaln budcJelary limits, then the cre- alivdy and competel~ce of the firm become '.-:..~lc-:y ~rf~levant and ils work in preparing dS response is wasled. Standardizalion v~i!hm lhe RFP process can be especially helpful Id the aqency and lhe respondents Even ~hou.qh RFP's are issued by ma~,y agencies, a slandard formal for their RFP maximizes readability and comparablhfy The mea.-.inc~ of words or phrases should not vary wJfh lhe agency or author. Also. the p~'ocess lot issuing RFP's should be slandafdized wilh respect fo the offlc."s which issue them and the office which calves them from respondents Not only wdl these off~c~ be able Io administer the d~s- thbufion and receipt of RFP's more elflc~enfly, bu! ~f would aa?. lhe burden on hrms Seeking RFP information il they could turn Io a cenlrat ofhc~ for info~mation. Sufficienl time needs lc be allowed for the preparatiOn of ~E.'~oonses, commensurate w~th ils expectations of the length and complexd¥ of the responses Ii is unfair fo allow so Idfle time that respondenls a~e forced unnecessarily rolo considerable overhme work. As a rule of thumb, a m;mmum of 30 day=. ~hould be permdted for response fO an RFP. but, as the work requesled by the RFP ~ncreases in complexity, the hme permitted for responses should increase commensurately Agencies may be on the fece~vmg end of professionally "packa(jed" responses from firms which maintain a special staff for fh~ purpose Such responses may be !orally un- representative of the capablhl~es of the firm fo ~fforrn lhe contemplated work tf is here that creafl¥1fy in approaches lo fha prof,:em n~(l~ 1o be we~c)h~d acJ~in~f lhe other credentials and qualdlcahons Both the agency and the firm 51',ould li~r fha staff who would hr,el/ be ~a~labie wo~ on fha s~udf The quaflflcahons of each individual hsfed should ~ d~f~bed ~haf an u~.~cfand~ng as fo fl~c rote ~n ~e stud/~n ~ gamed There is often a t~der, cy on fha pa~ of ~h pa~ ~o fl~f mocf of their 5~aff. f~ardles5 of fha flkehhc~ fhaf per, grit:el will be assigned to the paff~cular s~udy o~ that th~/ ha,~e any ~pec~at eyDe.~- The use of ~e RFP ~n be Su~sfuJ Only ri t~e agency spenos suffrc~ent s~ff l, me ~aluale ~r~ufiy ~e f~n~. Casual rewe/~ of r~h~ ~n undermine ~e pro~s. well ~ ~sJgn~ng ~alua~s lo ~e r~/ v~o may lack lhe experien~ fo judge fha q~fily ~ ~e i~ ~r~d. II must ~ em~a~zed lhel fha RFP. wh~le 8 u~ful nique for ~ain circums~n~, wdl require ~ns~deragle agen~ l~me and effo~, and agenci~ should ~efulJy ~aluafe ~f lhe same or a I~r amounl of time ~nded lhe lrad~flonal salesmen ~r~dure m~ghl nof produce b~ler result. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. A~nc~es are urged ~ deli '9 lhoroughly the p~op~d wo~ ~r~ram and ~n~der follow,ne lhe consulfan~ ~lecflon pro~dure rec- omm~nd~ ~ AlP and ~CP before dec~dmg Io u~e fha RFP pro~=. Agencies ~ssuing RFP'5 am urged ~o ado~ ~e following procedure, and mem~rs of AIP and ASCP are urg~ riel Io f~pond fo RFP's v~ich fa~l lo subs~nfrally fOIl~ ~: 1. ~mpile a lisl of firm~ ~i~red fo ~ qualified fo underage ~he job at ~ Soflcd ~ ~nd~vidual l~ler ~e mfer~f of only firms v~ich are deemed lo be wodhy of inclusion, exp~imng fha job fo ~ done an~ announcing lhe ~'a~labdily of an RFP; 3. Es~bfisb a fix~ budgel for f~ job and a fixed fca for submission of a 4. Oullme. in de~il, lhe obje~iv~ of lhe 51udy. Be specific regarding lhe and admJnJsfrafwe ~nsid~alions ~nvolved, including lhe criteria for ~aluafion and fha idenflly of fha r~nding firms wdl be concealed. ~. Acne, ledge ~ mail the r~i~l of the RFP respon~ from fha 6. If lhe number of respon~ is ~lenswe or ~f lwo or three firms ~em equally ~uafified, ~cfiedule ~flfe~i~/~s wilh fig ~re lhan lhree firms ?. After making lhe final Selection. neqoflafe a mulually ~flsfaclory fee for com~l~ion of the wo~. In order lo a~s~e ~mpl~e faJmess, the RF'P proccGs needs to guarantee ~hal idenflly of lhe f~ponding fi~ms is concealed from lhe ~aluafofs. The Stale ~ Mas~. sbu=ells ufiliz~ a pfo~du~e which ~f has found Su~sfuL II ~n~al~ the ~denl~ly of the firms submilfing p~o~als ~: 1. mquinnq lhal lhe proposal ~ submdled m two paffs: lhe fif~I par dealing wdh con- fe~ and c~eafivJly, and fha second pad deafing w~h an analysis of ~sl and ~ilh com- p~ence; ~ ~equif~ng fhaf each paff ~ subm~ffed ,n ifs own 5epatale envelope free of any ma~k- ings es fo lhe idenhly of lhe fi~m, bolh being contained ~n a third envelop, also frae of such markings; 3. ~fmJlhn9 ~de~ificafion of fha firm Io occu~ o~fly m lhe second pall of lhe proposal. 4. prohibiting any lelfefheads, disfinchve sfahonefy. 0f any ofhe~ clues or aflu~i0ns as fo lhe idenflly of fha firm m lhe firsl pafl. ~. requiring pfop0~ls tO be defiveted ~ hand on an appoinled day {seleclmg a person fO fece~ve lhem who would be a complete sl~anger fo anyone presenting a proposal on behalf of his firm), of else by f,)qu~rinq submissions by mad only. 6. num~rmq each proposal as re.wed, and lock,hq ~t ~n a vaull. ~. pefm~flmg fha fc~zmq and ~zaluahnq ~feff fo reed only Part I of each and by narfowJnq the choice down Io two et three f,fms, and 8. ,denhfy~ng /he flnah~l~ and ~nlery~w~r~q them prior fo reek,hq the final selection. F" A.~.~ocia, mn In!brmatio Service APRIL 1975 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 4 REPORT Procedures for retaining public works consultants THE REPORT AT A GLANCE 'this fei}oft presenls a lnanagcment appn,aeh to tile ~leclion of local go~emment consultants. It examines the various p~ocedufes prc~nfty u~d ~ the ~Iecfion of consuhan~s; sug- gest$ ~)me pnssible improvements; and discuses, step by step. thc methods that can be u~d to implement such ~npmvemcnts. ~he findings uf cent American Public Wmkt A~cia- tion/ln~titute for Municipal l[n~ineee ing nalionwide t?vey ~rve as the basis of the Most local govemnlents have est-.b. lished ptoced,res for selecting their consultants. These p;occdute% b~,w. e~e~. dilfef greatly in both from and ~ope. tangin~ from establid~cd lcgisla. lion lo informal evalnalion ~ssionL 1here procedures ]lave become pat. liculaHy significant fi, ,lana~crs and others in local government foYowing th~ December 1974 U.S. Court ndm~ (~nh~cqucnlly mtdcr l,cal to thc ~upfemc Ct.ltl) ;Igilillsl tile N;dion;d ~ocicty of Pnffc~sion~l nccrs, which has utlcmplcd fo pfcvcul collqtctitlv~ bidding for engineering ~fvJ~s. Atthmsgh lhi,i report is prinladly con- l;t~ll~. Il al~) relates to lite tl~e of nc~W,mng and other public agency slaffs as an alternative mcd~od. Photo courte&~ oj',4mertcon institute o[,4rchiteet~ o.c ; :,:, .:,/:;., !;'~)~'. ;If ~.~.ho I'~lfl',filf.sflf~ '~fr 'l,l.I oh-~! fit,t- ~l~,,..,,-, ,.. FOR RETAINING ,.,,,.; ,d,..,. a ,,r PUBLIC WORKS ....,m,,,,.n, ,,. fanta, advertising, pre~u3JJficatlon, jnvJlafJon, initial CONSULTANTS ,.,. fo,mai presentation and ,ubn,l,sio. of p,opo,is, fees. fha fee o~ tofo/ compen~tion question, and final ~Jec~,m negofialxon. Uiust~afive examples nfo Wen lhmu~muf. tile findin~ of a ~ecent American Public Works As~ialion/ln- ~fitute for Municipal En~needng nationwide sutv~ ~tving the ba~i~ of the [e~ft. The repots ends wilh an overall ~uclunion. Most of lhe di~u~nion refers to pmcedmcs applicable where large and costly, projects a~e involved. Small Local governments engage public works consultants wilco responsible officials in the jurisdictions or agencies concerned recognize that they cannot accomplish the work involved with flteir own forces. From the manage,iai viewpoint, such d~iaions are usually the result ora recognition: i. That the appropriate technical expertise is not avail. able in41ouse 2. That lhe workload schedule involved could not be met with existing staff 3. That a specialized project needs to be undertaken for which it would be uneconomical to employ present or even additional staff 4. That there is a need for an unbiased review of wo,k perfornted by Jn4touse staff to determine whether or not such work represents the best possible solution to whatever problem is being met 5. That there m~_y be a need for the fresh approaches, new deparfnres, and innovative thinking often avail- able from new and different sources of expe,tise. The pre~ent report therefore offers a critical review of existing and potential managerial practices in this important and ~ensitive area of local government, it begins with a brief This report was prepared by the staff of rite American Public Ira,kS Astoedatlon: .lerome FranMht, Senior Research ~ngi. neet; attd Soho R. Kerstetter, I)trector of brio, marion. ?lte rep~n.~t was re~.lewed by the Institute for Municipal lng, attd the A#terican Contulti,g F. ngi, eers Council. but this does not imply endortetnent b~ either organitation. Suggested Citation: American Public Works Astoclatio,. htsti. tule /or Municipal i;ngbteerbtg. Procedures far Retaining JYhlic Works Cunsultants, Manageme,t Infi~rmatbm Serrh'e Rcporto Vol. ? ilia. 4 {Washotgton, D.C.: International City Management Association, April i 9 75}. jobs. of course, require less complex managerial procedures appropriate to the level of funding involved. CONSULTANTS: WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DO In thc, earlier years of local gove,nment, it was formerly common practice fo, a jurisdiction to retain one consulting firm. Such a consultant, it was held, became familiar with the local community and ils politics and economics. With the ~owlh of local government, h~ever, it became necess~ to meet a wide tango of ~pec~l demands and ~rvices. Today, ~erefme. il is not unusual ~o have many specialist consul~am firm~ available. In ~n~quence, tl~e adoption of adequate procedures for the ~lection of consultants ha~ become a ~owing preoccupation of responsib[e 1o~1 government man- Mo~t cons.ltants are usually architects or engineers. As a result of recent ~e~onal, state, and federal fequiremems and legislation, however, ll~e local government of the mid.1OT0s often also faces a need for ll~e ~tvices of planners, economists, euvitunmentalis~s, s~iolo~sts, finaflc~i ad.rs, and other specialist ~nsuJtants. ~le aclual ~tvices pmvid~ by consu/lants covers a wide range. A tentative list would include, but certainly uol he limited to, acflvilies in: preliminary and tirol design; bidding documenlaliou; inspection; su~fvisiou; lasting; feasibility studies; ~nnnnnity development; pollution control; wafer resources; ~mnsfi sludies; parking; highways; tndn~ldal de~el. opment; aitpoas; public housing; ~wage lteatment; utilities: mban and te~onnl planning; ~lid wasle Iteatmenl and dlsp~l; flood control; computer services: envimumental as~ssments; management pro.dines and conltols: Iransporla- lion planning; waterways and ports; drai~ge facilities; archi. lecture; and traffic and structures. Some advi~y ~vices a~e, of court, available from non.profit otganization~ such as universities. ~e~vice organics. Sinus. governmental agencies, and professional group~, lade. ~ndent pdvate consulting firms, however, duminafe fha field. attd thc evaluation p~ocedufcs. ~lecfion mechamsms and policies, melhod$ of negolialing compen~lion, ami so discussed in tile premnt report largely addten~ themselves toward lbo ~lec:ion ~[ independent private consulting BA$1~ ROLES IN THE SELECTION Given a pn,lifetation in the tlumbe~ of consultants, and immen~ tango of Iheir practical expertise, how can local g~W¢IlUlIClII eJecled oJficJ.'ds and lll.'lfl:lj~Cf5 .~t.J,: ,'l~.,,~.,i,m, d~ffetiflg individt~als and gtoup~ involved iff local government ~d its operation p~y under th~ conditions? Federal and ~tate ~encies ~y. of com~. ~ able p~ovide the equivalent of technical gt~icei them~l~es: the Federal Itighway Administration and lhe En~itonmenlal Pro. lection Agen~ are ob~iou~ e~mples. State age~cie~ which can offer assistance ate the regulatory, civil ~tvice, planning. highway, health, and police agencies. The~e ate alto stale and local tc~arch ethnic/ions and fouudatioa~, taxpayer ~atioa~, municipal and ~uat~ ot~ai~tioa~, and aum~rouj ~ll~e~ ~d uai~r~itieJ. la ~dditioa to dh~ct ~i~aa~, howe~et, ~uch agencies ~d o~gaai~tio~ ~a often giv~ ad~c~ - ad~ice t~t ~ill ~ipful to ~g Io~! government manJg~ - 1. Obtaining funds for p~elimiaat~ studie~ 2. Sugg~ling q~li~ed co~l~al~ 0a Ohio. for ample, the ~rtmeat of ~dmingtrativ~ ~tvices ~11 ~t ~multiag ~m~ l~rdiag to the si~ of the parligu~t proje~) ~e~ bodies ~n alto ~upply iafot~tioa lhrou~ ~a~, r~r~, ~riodical~, bull~tiai and a~sl~ltets, iafor~. lion ~y al~ b~ di~m~ated al ~tiags and training ~ot~ops. ~lat~d ~ou~j of a~Jtan~ wRl iaclud~ business, ~bor. and ~mmuait~ i~ad~r~; cili~a~' ad~so~ groups: busiae~ ~xeguti~s oa loan; and, not lea~t, tepo~ hem other agencies or levels of government who We ~fully gappJed with similar probit. In spite of su~ a~i~an~, the ~lection of an inde~ndent private ~nmlting ~tm is frequently necessity. ~at principks are involved? Althou~ different ~lection ~m~i;illee~ will clearly be needed for proje~s of vao. ing size and ~mplexity, experien~ ~ lo show t~l all of a juri~iclion's officers - elecled, administrative, and techni~l - may have significanl roles to play in the seleclion process. ~e~ roles are dependent on such factors ~ local responstbilily, tradition, ~gai aulhorily, and professional guidelines. I~: most juridic. lions, elected offictal~ will umally designate either the adminis. Irato~, p,blic works officer, et a ~le~lion commiltee lo ch~ the consultant. This is done to not only avoid having lo make a technical decision, but aim to minimi~ lhe political mertones which could atim. Of ~ut~. ~he fh~ai decision is ultimately made by the elected body, which hal the option of accepting or rejecting a lu~eilion or ~ecommeadalion. The makeup of the gleclion committee depends ,pon each jumdiclion. ~me ~mmtllees will inch:de only jutisdic. lional olficets and tecbnicians: others will include "oulside" technicians and laymen; and mine will include a mixture of both group~. Written p~ocedures ate al~ dependent upon Ihe particular jurisdictions. Flmida, for e~mple, h~ now adopted a Co:~ul. lasts Competitive Negotiation Act (Appendix A)whici~ applies lo all contract~. Tho~ juri~ictions who~ conltacls are estimated to exceed $25,000 may ~eceive assistance in preparalion and ptocedure~ al cosl, from either the Florida l~patmlent of Transportation or il~ Department of ~tvices. J;lfl.tl cJI~Ce Ill.t)' al¢,~, depend ui,,.on p;iM J~tJ~Jtlll:lll~'e glvi~. Many communilies desire Io contim~e with know~ firms et individuals without formalities of a gleclion particularly on small contracts. On Ihe other hand. would feel thai such a ~itual~n might invile charges favoritism, undue perpetuation of procurement patterns, anti other [mdemoctatic practices. Another significant factor lo be considered is the Iocalio~ of the firm within or without the jmisdtction concemefl. political factors may become involved. In any event, it would ~ rare - in the case ora choice between two fingi~ts - not We the contract awarded to the "lo~l" flaying noted these general factors, it is now ~sible t~ take a ~tep~y~tep look at the act~l procedures involved ~etaining pt~blic works con~ultanti. &DOPTIOM OF PRO JEST I~en a p~oject statement is to be gi~zn to a ~nsulting firm. appears good manageria~ pt~tice to include: 1. A deg~iption of the work and it~ objectives 2. ~e nature of specific tas~ and gtvice$ to be accomplished 3. ~e ty~ and amount of a~istance to be Wen by the juri~iction 4. A required time hame 5. ~y finangial conditions or limitations. Other pre~ualification constraints - such an a preference for local firms, sizg of the firm, and past work experience with the jurisdiction - should aim be included in the ~atement. ~POI~TglE~T OF THE 8ELEgTIO~ gOMMI~EE ~lection committee~ can consist of various combinations of juriMictional elected officers, technical administrators, fiuan- ~al advisors, and appointed citizens. The makeup can even vary according to the estimated ~st of the ptoj0¢t and/et the ~timated fee of the consultant. According to ~he A~A/IME nationwide ~utvey, Tagoma. Washington's minim,m fee ~eq,iting the appointment of a mlecti,m committee is $3,000. while $5.~0 is applicable in llennepin County. Minnesota, Wichita. Kansas, Newport Beach and San Joaq,in Corn:fy, California and Gra,d i~pids. Michigan. Ventuta County. California ha~ a minimum $6.500; while $10.000 is slecified in l'alo Allo. San Jose and San Diego Connty. California and Jackson Cou,ty. Missomi. For amtmnts below the mit~imums, in'Wichit:t, the city manager is a,thotized t~ ~lect the cotuultaut ba<d ,pon recommeudations. In Sau Jo~. the director of public wotka makes the recomme,dations, aud in San i}icgo Gnmty. public works adminismttor can let the contt;~ct. Where pattern of choice is prevalent, the selection i$ ~metimes based on rotation of locally pre~nalified firms. The select/on committee make,p may further depend ~p~n site -r "potenti:~lily" of the prt0ect. For example. varies in S;m Jo~ ~ot contracts hem SIO.O00 to S50.000. for tlto~ over S50.000. In the former, the "review board" co,~ists of the deputy director of pubhc works, the engineer of the division letting qte contract, and one other divi.~i,,n engineer. For Ibc latter, a fi,~e-menrbcr a public wo~ks official (p~efe~ably fr-m oul~ide Santa ('la~a ~unty); a representative of a consulliug firm of lhe same discipline ~ tho~ being inierviewed; the ditecior of pubfic wotk~ (or the deputy); one other ~ly official; and the division engineer of the division lolling llie conHact. The consullant ou ~e renew board is recommended by the professional ~ciefies. In W~hita, the ~lectton committee consists of the cji) ~age~, the director of ~min~ttation, director of public works,'director of law, and the budget officer. In projects of "wide public h~tetest," however, the ~atd of City Commis- ~onets a~ ~ the ~lection committee. ~fis al~ Pale ~to, C~ifomta for "~ community impact" pfojects. For "~nttoversial" projects, lialifax, Nova ~tia, in addition ~ 3 ~aff members, apVoints an additional member from an ouBtde public agm~. In E~ondido, Califom~ the committee ~n~B of ~e ~ty~an~r or the appointee, the director of public wot~, city engineer, director of ~mmunity develop. inept, and a member of the city ~uncil. ~e Dade County, Florida, manager appoints the corn- mitts, which consgtg af three registered professionals in the field of ende2vor or practice involved, all of whom shall be employed by the ~unty, but in Oak Ridge, Tennes~e the city manager appoint~ a ~lection committee of 5 professional ~ti~ns with 3 ¢ity ~taff ~ing ex.ingle. Ig Penncola, Hori~ it ~niisB of the p~oject director, city engineer, and diregtot of transportation. In Bloomington, Minne~ta, the ~ty m~ager ap~int$ ~g deputy city manger, the utility mpe~isor, th~ director of administ~ation, tho ditegtot of development and tl~e ~ty engineer. {n Day,on, Ohio th~ beam of review consists of the director of finance, director of law, and the assi~lanl city manager. ~fis board is an intermediary between iht ~cchnical ~partment h~d and the ~ity manager and ~mminion. Hwenix, At~ona ~ a ~mmittee compo~d of the ~nlract$ admingtrator, assistant city ensneet, do?~ty city design en~neer, ~d the proj0ct en~n¢¢r Rom tho section Mvolved. NOTIFICATION TO CONSULTANTS Jud~ictiofls ~ve various merlins of notifying consultant; they are desirous of their ~icea. For smallez coutracts. jurisdictions may utilizo a list of conmltant; who have already ~rfo~ed similar work ~tisfactorily. ~Jcse are usually local firms, and can be reco~endcd by tile ~lection committee. A rotational plan is most ~mmon, bu: in Rivorside, California, favorabl~ consideration i$ given to fi~ms not haviug prior expefleflco willt the city in an 0fMtl to ~har~ work equally. ~t~ is thc practl~ aim iff Fresno, California. For large~ contracts, ~licitation can be tl~rouglJ ma~s adveflisiug, professional journals, individual contact, and from prequalJfication IMs. ADVEnTISINO ~te State of Flodda requires "all jmisdJctJons (each agency) Io publicly announce In a uniform and consistent manner on ~olt oc~sion when profenionai services are required." Adverti~itt$ it also u~d when highly specialized ~rvice~ are not locally or regionally available. Media used are local and rationally circulated newspapers, state and national technical ~iflos, and profenionai ~ciety journals. pRE.QUALIFICATION Florida cfltes and cowmcs, and many of lite larger citie~ aud counties el~ewhere, inchulmg Milwaukee, l~)s Angeles, nix. attd .'San Diego. compile professional resumes and q'aes- thmnaire$ to prod.ce li~ts of pre-qualified consultants, both as to size and specialty. Other smaller, jurisdictions {Appendix utilize a variety of questionnaire forms, with most referring to the following items: 1. Firm name, address, telephone numbers 2. Year established attd former firm names 3. Types of services for which if is qualified 4. Names of principals of the firm and states in which they are registered 5. Names of key personnel, with experience of each and length of time in the organization 6. Number of staff available for assignment 7. Outside consultants and associates usually retained 8. List of completed projects on which the firm was principal engineer 9. Current projects underway and estimated cost of each i0. Data-gathering met hods i 1. Evaluation techniques. This _pre-qualification helps save time in tire initial solicitation of firms, as consultants can be divided into specialty and technical groupings, showing financial responsi- bility, personnel size availability, and inforntation as to past performance. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago utilizes consultants' resumes to divide firms into three consultant lee categories: a) less titan S50,000; b) $50.000 to $200,000; and c) over $200,000. It also requesls information regarding suspensiou or revocation of professional licenses of key members, and legal actions or suits for over $$,000 during tl~e previous 10.year period. These lists may or may not be kept confidential, accordiug to local policy. Usually, to remain effective, the lists are updated every year or two. INVITATION Consulting firms may also be notified by direct invitation based on rotation, reputation, location, and referral by another firm. INITIAL SCREENING The selection committee at this point has lite responsibility of narrowing Iht list or short-listing · lo tile normal three !o live firms which will b¢ sc;coted to suhrrtit delailed proposals. Fresno. California fC, lUites a minimum of lhree firru~ fi,r fees varying from $20.000 to $50.0~, and a minimum of five fl~ms for over The basic areas to be explored ate as follows: I. Specialized experience its the type of w(uk requnrd 2. Record of lite fiml in accomplishing work on other projects itl tile required tittle 3. Geographic location of qualified fittm relative lo the project locatiotl 4. Quality of work previously ~rfotmed by the fi~m for the agency 5. Evidence of any attempt to evad~ responsibility for - evident desigu failures 6. Recent experience showing accuracy of cost 7. Community lelations including evidence of sensitivity to citizen concerns -- environment, ecology, etc. 8. Current workload in local office 9. Imf;est job handled by the film from its inceptson, and during tile past five years 10. Onalificatimss and competence of key personnel · 1 I. Relations with previous clients. llalifax. Nova Scotia rates each factor on a basis of I. 2. where each succeeding figm'e has a higher measure of preference. For those factors which cannot be rated on this basis, meamre of preference will' be signified by 0 t-~ I indicating acceptable or unacceptable. A similar procedure is followed in the Port of Portland, Oregon (Appendix C). in oMer to resolve any questions concerning the general opelations of the consultant, the selection committee should not hesitate to visit the consultant's office, ~nd to interview the principals and key slaff. Much insight can thus be gained as to future working relations. Contacts can also be made with pre~ious clients of the firm who have undertaken similar work. With tile selection committee's initial screening com- pleted, the three to five firms chosen should be notified in writing, with the details for presentation and submission of their respective formal proposals. Similarly, tin firms which were not successful ~hould bo thanked, in writing, for the effort~ they made. FORMAL PRESENTATION AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Each of the firms selected for final screening should be given the opportunity of having a specified time and location for making its folmal presentation. Adequate lime should be allowed to enable each firm to become familiar with tile details of tile project. If neccssaq,-, site visits shoold scheduled, and briefings by agency staff arranged. The more information given to the consultant, tile better Isis understand- in; of the project - which, in turn, provides him with a method of approach for the ~olution of the problem. Concurrent with the proposal's preparation, the selection committee should make an evaluation of the firms with to the following typical items concerning prior projects: 1. Addenda issued to prospective contractors during the bidding process 2. The type of change ordels issued during construction, and their effect on the project 3. Award price versus the engineer's esthnate 4. Final coflstrt,cfiofl costs compared with award price 5. Basis and amount of compensation received for compar- able services provided other clients on similar projects 6, Post-const~uctlon problem.~ in startup and operation, and additional costs required to place the facility in operation, as a percentage of construction cost 7. Changes in t~ope, services, and compensation during the life of the consultants' agreement with p~evious clients 8. Attention given to the project during construction and after the final payment to the consultant in the event of failmes ot proces_~ problems 9. l'~,s~ible c,mtlic~s of interest including full dssclosule by the consultant of his offset clients in the area 10. Degree of responsibility accepted by the consultant for the techmcal a~pects of the project (some cities hold the public wes ks director or city engineer ~esponsible ) Il. Application to previous projects of clear engineering ana[y~is and jud~nent of on4Jte conditions; al~nce of handbook or "cookbook" engineering application~; am(hint of original engineering thinking applied to the pmjegl 12. Amount of time and attention the principals of the fimt will apply to the project, and their availability to their client 13. How well the firm rectifies it~ corers, including ll~e assumption of persomi financhl r~ponsibility to ~t~ect 14. limoO. of key personnel turnover in the firm 15. 11o~ well ~e ~nsultant met time ~edule~ on previous p~ojects. If tile consultant has had no prior working experience with the agency, the selection committee should not hesitate to verify Isis or her statements with other agencies. The Port of Portland. O~egon maintains an evaluation of all past projects for 3 phases - end of the design period, end of the construction period, and a year ~ater. These evaluations considel adherence to the time schedule, costs, staff perfor- mance, working relationships, and defects. Final review rat- in;% for future reference, are also made by St. Paul, Minnesota. Tile prime factors to be rated in the final greening a~e tile consultant's: I. Management capabilities 2. Approac!,. to tile problem 3. Understanding of the agency's objectives 4. Proposed work schedule 5. Stafflt, be assigned 6. Fee, when specifically requested. Other items of general considelation are: 1. Knowledge oflocalsituation 2. Ability to communicate 3. Confidence factor 4. Presentation and attitude. In Brooklyn Park. Minnesota the selection committee visited water treatment plants designed by each of four finalists, visited each of their offices, and then rated each ~ to strong and weak points in order to teach a decision. llalifax, Nova Scotia urns the following detailed criteria: ~e Ptopo~l 1. Ate the pmpo~, nope. general plan. methodology aud type of ~esult anticipated clearly defined by the consultant7 2. is the c~.nceptual framework adopted by the consul. taut appropriate to the project7 3. Does tile propnsal meet the terms of lefeleuce and the intended scope of the ptojectT IhS the firm e~pandcd on tile tcfm~ of reference~ $. If applicable, what del~ee of originality ii p~e~ent m ' the proposal? 6. llas the firm defined the parameters of the project with sufficient precision? 7.Is the firm's preliminary work plan 8.Is the total project management adequately defined? 9. Are the project segments properly interrelated and weighted relative to one another? Tuning and Scheduling 1. Do the timing and scheduling proponed by the firm coincide with the agency's requirements? 2. How is the scheduling of the work presented? Is it the most appropriate approach to the project? 4.Is the timing realistic? 5. Has the firm substantiated the schedule it proposes? 6. llas the firm proposed a method of control and review of the fimiug and scheduling? Consullant - Agency Relationship 1. Has the firm planned for the submission of pt_~.-ss reports and interim briefings? 2. Is the proposed content of progress reports in accordance with the requirements of the agency? (monthly statement of lactated costs, commitments, revised cost estimates, etc.) 3. What degree of direct consultant-agency liaison is proposed? FEES U.S. Public Law 92-582. approved Oclobe~ 27, 1972. Title iX - Selection of Architects and Engineers -- .Sec. 902 declares the policy of the Federal Government to be "to negotiate contracts for architectural and engineering services on rite basis of demonstrated competm~ce and qualification for the type of professional ~ervices required and at fair and reasonable pttces" ,Sec. 904 directs the agency head lo negotiate a contract with the highest qualified firm.., at compensation which the agency head determines is fair and reasonable to the Government." However, in December. 1974, U.S. District Court ruling found "the ban off competitive bidding by professional engineers" illegal, as constituting price.fixing in violation of the Shemtan Anti-Trust Act. The National Society of Profes- sional Engineers (NSPI~), defendant in the suit, is now (April, 1975) appealing the decision to tile U.S. Supreme Court. The NSPE Code of Ethics stresses that the choice of an engineer should be based o~ teclmical compelen~:e, geuetal background, and experience - wifh thc client choosing the firm which, in the former's opinion, is the best qualified to satisfactorily perform the a~signed task. The Al'WA Code is similar but it acknowledges the need to consider the cost of the services to be provided when a consultant is rct:~ined. APWA's Code of Ethics "recogni~,~s that it is not in the public interest for officials of public agencies to ~elect and retain professional engineering ~ervices on the basis of price alone and that consideration must also be given to experience, technical expertise, availability, and other qualificalions." While NSPE is coufident ti~at its appeal will be successfifl, au adverse ruling could lead sente public agencies to give more weight to the consultant's fee than to his or her qualifications. 1his may, in furn. result in the adoption cfi new ~alcguard~ procedures. Already. !he General ~tvices Admi.i~ttafi~,~, (GSA) i~ planning lo requite more detads of a consultant's experience and perfinmance on specific projects. GSA feel~ thal tl~e~e will ~ a t~end towards ~m~aci~ being awarded on full)' developed project ptopo~ls, including life cycle costs. ~ite price would be a faclot, detailed technical proposal:. would make lhe estimated fee cf the c~msullant a relatively mino~ factor in the total cost of the project. At pt~l, mosl agendes, ~nsi~tenl with conventions: practice, do not discu~ feen dining the final selecti,n process. Wa~ington County, Maryland. however, states "tha~ for all fees over SI,0~, the amount s~ll be of prime ~nsideration in ~lection." San Joaquin County. California. Addison, lllino~ and Kearny, New Jer~y requite a cos: statement to be mbmitted with the propel. ~kewood. Colmado teq,~ts a c~t statement, but il is ~patately. ~is is al~ the procedure followed in Waterloo. Ontario. The purpo~ of the fee inclusion is for the ~lection ~mmittee lo be able to determine if the finalisl's fee is within the budget allo~tion for the project, prior to final nego- t~tion. EEC OR TOTAL ~is amount uormally includes lechni~l payroll, admini~lt;~- live help, clerical e~n~, ~pital costs, office equipment tent, taxes, insurance, realities, report preparation, readiness t,. ~tve. overhead, and profit. It may be calculated by the following various methods: 1. ~mp sum or fixed fee 2. Cost per unit 3. Per diem ot hourly basis 4. Sala~ cost limes a multiplier 5. Cost plus a deletmined fixed payment 6. Percentage ofconmucfiou cost 7. Retainer fees, annual or otherwise. ~e fee is normally governed by the complexity of ~toject and the completeness of services requited. FINAL SELECTION AND NEgOTIaTION U~m teaching a decision, the ~lection commitlce ~l~ould pte~nt a documemed report (minutes, methodL and lo the agency's governing b~y. This rep,at should summati/, ali li~e acliviiies a,d d~cisiun* made iu pilot m~iin~, a,d recommendations an ~o the consultant ~lecled. In most juti~dicfions, the governing body will accept repofl, and sequest the appropriate administrative ofhcet usually lhe city manager or the director of public works -- t. proceed wifl~ final negotiations. In Milwaukee. Wisconni~ however, the commissioner of public wotk~ becomes tl~. contracting officer after the Council adopts an autho~zi~.: resolution. There can be oc~sions when the ~lection fee's recommendation will be rejected, but this happens ta~ occasions, and ~ most unlikely if the presentation h:, ~en catefiflly p~epared and is well documented. The fitst~hoice firm then i~ a~ked Io enter into fin. negotiations. At this time, both patties define the exa. t condilious of lite contuct-~ope, work plan and .~hedtJle. person,el, c.m, fcc, and mclhod of paymcnl. U~n c-mi,lc- lion of ncgolJafion~. Ibc fosnmi conl~acl is p~csentcd lo Ihe jut~dicliml's appmpfiale authorities for signalme. If. how~, after a specified time, n~ol~lions wilh lhe tim choice conmltan~ fail, Ih~ ~ould be fo~lly broken off ~d begun with the ~xl hi~! aled firm. In no ~ she,Id ~u~lhe~ negot~tions on th~ job be enler~ into wills .fl~it~hoice fi~m. No~lly fe~ a~e not di~d prior ~o final n~lialion bul thb qu~lion ~s mool in lho~ ~s ~e fe~ m~l be included a pa~ oflhe U~n fo~li~lton of ~he :onl~act, lhe unsu~ssfui firms ~ould be nntified ~ writing, with thc thanks of the jurMicti~, fo~ ~e t~e. money, and effo~t exp~ded. ~LU$10~ .~at genial ~ndu~ons, ~ful to tho~ ~lh ~gement r~biliti~ in Ioni government. ~n be drown in addition to the detaged analysis pmented ~ ~ rep~? ~e foll~ing ~ina ~m ~pec~Uy pe~ent: · Pro~ures fo~ the ~le~ion of 1~ government colzsldtallt~ appear to have become increasingly fi,z;.ai. At the ~me time, scflccti.g a t~eml g~s'cmmenl generally, lhey spp~ 1o hae ~come m.~e ~es~m~is, e to file public ~ fo~ mo~e o~nnc~ in gn~e~nmcnl. Becau~ of reccnl nalioawidc publicily ~ncermng ~leclion p~ocedures and ~licies, lhe~e all levels of govemmenl Io adopt deMled pm~dures oz guidelines. Tradilioually, ex~ien~ and e~my o~ dcsi~s were thc prime factors in ~lecting a consullant. Today, in addition, selection bodi~ a~e aho ~nside~- lng the co~ultant's ~nsitivity to othe~ fa~ors, such ~ the environment; ~cial t~; ~d histom, ~e~o~l, and cultunl interests. ~lection bodies in~in~y include fitt~ m~l~fs -- both teclmi~l and non-~hni~ - ~ addition to profe~ional agen~ s~ff. ~nn~s in communi~ting the ~th~s and ~n- ing fo~ choosing a co~llant is n~s~ to ~intain the credibilily of the ~lection pro~, as well as being ~und ma~ pm~i~. Appendiz A ;YNOPSI$ OF FLORID~ LAW IMow is a summary of tile slops set fotll~ in The Confmltaul$' Competitive Negollafion Act (llotae Bill ~09)as beln$ nece$$asy to secure prol'mional terriers. Step l - Publl~ Announcement of the project. Re Set forth in an appropriate media a general descrip. lion of the wo~k to be done and services lo be ~endered. B. ,e. end letters to lirms who have requested notification. Step 2 - Pre-Qualification and Certificallon of Firms as Qualir~d to Perform. A. Study each firm's qualification data already on file. B. Study new applications setting forth firms' qualifica. lions. C. After study in A and B certify firms as qualified after study. Step 3 - Selection of Certified Qualified Firms. A. S~reen list of Certified Qualified Firms. Bo Evaluate discussions and pre~ntations by interested Certified Qualified Firms. Selection of $ ur mote C~rfified Qualified Films. Establish the o~der of preference of firms ba~ed on qualifications. Establishment of preference precedes. and is e~ential to, step 4. Step 4 - Negotiation of Professional Service Contracts. Ao Commence definite contract negotiations wilh the top Certified Qualified Firm dcterntined by Step 3. C. Above. la Contract negotiations: !. Establids detailed and full scope of services to be s.pplied. 2. Determine and negotiate compensation that is fait. competitive and rea~nable. 3. Conclude contract if negotiations ate successful. If not. terminate negotiations and go to Step 4. B. below. Bo After negotiations ate terminated with Firm ns,tuber 1. commence negotiations with 2nd most quahfied fi~m. and repeat step 4, A. 1. and Step 4. A. 2, above. es F' If successful wilh No. 2 firm. co,dude contra¢i. It r..ot, lerminale negotiations with firm munbet '7 ami proceed with fism number 3 in the manner set forth above. Additional Considerations (I) Truth in negotiation clause is required, if professional contrac! is int,e than $50.000. (2) Contingency fee provision is required in contract. (3) Assistance is available at cost flora the Flmida Department of 'l'lansportation and the Florida par~ment of General ~s fo~ contracts in of 525~. (4) Contracts ex,ting prior to July ], ]973. a~e noi affected. A & E QUALIFICATION DATA SHEET [W;uhing~on County, Ma~/landl (I) Name of Firm: (2) Address: (~) Firm Specialty: : Telephone (4) Branch O$ce (Location): ($) Personnel in Home Of lice (H.O.) and Branch Office (B.O.): (a) Architects ll.B..,, B.O. (b) Civil Engineers ILO. B.O. (c) Snnitary ~ngineer$ ILO...., B.O. (d) Structural Engineers II.O. , , , ILO. (e} Mechanical Engineers ILO. B.O. , (O Electrical Engineers ILO. B.O... (g) Traffic I~ginecrs lf.O. B.O. (h} Landscape Architects ILO. B.O. (i) Pla.n~s II.O.., ,. B.O. (j) Designers ll.B. ,, , B.O. (k) Draftsmen ILO. , .... ~.O. (I) Survey Parties !1.O. O.O. (m) Other' Specialties (See instructions, sheet number 4) (6) Expeficnce Capabilities: (i) CIVIL ENGINEERING: (a) *llighway Design (b) Street Design (c) Ilydraullcs A ilydrology (d) Drainage Design (e) Storm Drainage Design (f) Site Development Design (g) Site Grading & Drainage Design nh) Airport Design (i) Ea,h x, R,ck Fill D.,ns. (j) Other (Specify) (11) STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: (a) Foundations (b) Simple Structures (c) B.dges (d) Flood Control Stnsctmes (e) Drainage Structures (f) Other (Specify) (11I) SANITARY ENGINEERING: · (tv) (v) (a) Water Treatment Supply (b) Sewage Treattnent (c) Solid Waste Oisposal (d) Water Distribntion Sys!em5 (c) Sanitary S~es Systcsm (O Other (Specify) PLANNING: (a) Rcgioual Iqanning (b) Urban lqanfling (c) Recreational Plan,ring (d) Water Resource Planning (c) Master Planning (f) Traffic Planning (g) Site I'lanniug (h) Feasibility Studies fi) Other (Specify) ARCi II'II".CTIJRAL DESIGN: (a) Building Alterations & Additions (b) I'ublic Buildings (c) Office Bttildiflgs i'd) Vchtde Maintenance Buildin~ (e) lhmsing(Single Family) (0 ll-nsing {Multi. Family) (g) Recreational Facilities {h) l~ndsca~ Architcctme (i) Other (Specify) (VI) MF. CIIANICAL ENGINEERING: (a) Ileating (bi Air-conditiouing, Refrigeration (c) Building Pipiug Design (d) Pumping Stations (Size ) (e) Control Systems (t-} Fire Protection Systcnts (g) Other (Specify). (VII) ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING: (VIII) ia) Communications (bi Lighting (c) Electrical Systems for Public & Office Buildings (d) Other(Specify) ENVIRONMENTAL: (a) Environmental Pollution Control (bi Environmental Impact Assessment (c) Natural Resources Studies (d) Ecologist Specialty (e) Other (Specify). (IX) SOILS & MATERIALS ENGINEERING: (a) Soils and Foundations (7) (bi Emha.kmenl & F.x,.avati,,fl Slabilily invest it~lions (c) Rock MechanicsS~ci~ly (d) Soil i~riug~ (e) Materials Testing (f') Consltuction Ins~cfion (g) Other (Specify) (X) OTIIER DISCIPLINES: (-',) Laud Surv:yi,tg (bi Cunstr.ctioa Slakeout (c) c'-r:n~,;~Jctlo:l Inspection (d) Aefiid Photography (e) Phologrannuetfic Mapping l0 Real Er, late Appraisals (g) Estimators (Required) Additional services that can be provided by other firms associated with your organization (See Instructions): (8) Date Prepared: (9) (Signature) h;struclions Line (J): Firm Speciahy - i.e. Architectural, Medtanical, Hishway, Planning, etc. Line ($): Personnel -- State number of personnel its each co,npany office engaged in specific arcs of work. Under ilelu (m) "Oilier Specialties", allach a list indicating those additional services that cat, be provided, tttch,di,,g the number of personnel en. gaged in each activity. Line (6): Experience Capabilities - Code as follows: (4) for specialty (2) for average (I) for some experience (0) for firm is unqualified Line (7): Additioual Services - List the name of thc and Ihe addilional service Ih;t! can be provided. Allach a separale ,4 & i': Qualificaticm Data Sheet for each firm lts~ed. Linc(9): Signature I:()rn~ to be signed by Ol'ricer or l'rMcipal of Fire! (3) for extensive experience l'iocedurcs for Rclai,in8 i'ublic Wnlk, Coim~llanls ! '. Appendix C CONSULTANT SELECTION FORM [Port of Portland, Oregon] Plcase score Ute consulting film on a scale front Iowl lo high~ you feel his pc~forma,ce rates on the following list of items. .Project: Name of Firm: Date: Your Name: i. Backgronnd and experience of firm's slaff members wllo would be assigned to the job. 2. Size of job. 3. Availability 4. Locality of firm (score high local) $. Experience of staff members who would be assigned to the job tn a field closely related to the job. 6. Ability to justify and sell ideas. 7. Ability oF consuhant to supply nil of the major disciplines neeo~sa~, to perform the work. 8. Approach fo the accomplishment of a project Subtotal I 2 .1 4 5 Scot, 9. Accuracy of the firm in estimating time requirements. 10. Ac,0u~acy of firm in estimating cost requirements. Total Note: Questions 9 and I0 pertain to fi.ns who have previously do,e work for the Port. '~ ':[i ;'J' _ ..... '"'; 'MEMORANDUM Stato of Alaska fo. Kevin Waring, Director Div. of Community Planning DA]E .July Iq, 1976 FILE NO: Fl~°U:Glen Svendsen · Senior Planner IELEPHONE NO: · ..~ ""'~---'"" .. ~..~_~ sun~:~ RFP drafting & review of % tant proposals ~ / Recent experience with the Fort Yukon project has pointed up the need for an outline or model local agencies can use in preparing a request for proposals. Once consultant proposals are received, the communities also need technical assistance In analyzing those proposals. This memo addresses both these needs. Any comments or reconunendaUons on the processes described are welcome. The request for prcposals (RFP) sent out by the communities that we work with Is often their fl: st contact with a planning consultant. I think the RFP should give as accurate a picture of the communltyts needs and requirements as possible, to ensure both a mutual comprehension of the project between the consultant and the commm dry and tight administrative control over the project. In order to achieve these goals, Just whet should an RFP Include/ The RFP out- line, which follows, gives a fair Indication of the types of Information which should b~ glvert. RFP FORMAT An Introductory paragraph which Identifies the community, states the type of project, the desire to use consultant services, a re- quest or solicitation of proposals, and a statement that excludes the community from any obligation to pay for the cost~ Incurred by the consultant In making the proposal. Background Information on tho need for the project and the specific problems to be addressed. Detailed scope-of-services, which should Include as much specific Information on graphics, method of performance, work elements, end methodology, etc. ns possible. The scope-of-services in the original contract with the Department usually provides the basic information for points 2 & 3. Publication of Documents - this section should state the acknow- ledgement required, the total number of coples, and the responsi- bility of the consultant to provide for publicaUon. MEMO Kevin Warlng -2- JuW I~1, 1976 S.Time-Frame and Project Budget should clearly lay out these key parameters. Specifying the approximate amount of funds avallableo type of funds (cash - vs - In-kind) and any local desire to pro- vide In-kind services will save the consultant a good deal of un- certainty tn drafting the proposals. The community, In turn, gains as much competitive advantage from giving an exact price as from glvi~3g the consultants only a "ballpark= figure, and saves some admlnlstrative time. The only consideration on time-frame Is simply to allow some leeway at the end of the project for de- lays in printing, final review, and major changes. A May dead- line for projects which must be completed by the end of a June 30 fiscal year has worked fairly well (especla!ly when there Is some additional unofficial leeway in the June 30 deadline with HUD) -. An early May deadline also provides the Division with time to cam- plata administraUva review, payments and close-out by June 30. Other stipulations change from community to community, do- pending on their specific concerns. Stipulations to be considered Include: I. requirements for general public presentations 2. presentations to the council at key points such as finalizing goals and objectives, development of alternatives, completion of the draft, and final submittal. 3. Specification of review of the final draft by the community and the Department. 4, Material Is to be presented in a form that Is usable by the Iocai community and easily up- dated. The community can also Indicate to the consultant some of the points that will be considered In evaluating the proposals, but that are difficult to require as stipulations. This would cover such things as the time to be spent In the communlty0 types of local Involvement, the consulting fimn~s copablllty and experience In local planning projects, Alaska experience, and so pn . ..Yl~ ,, ~/./,~ i l~,.,,~ ;, ~/d .,~ ~.~,,~v ,~ /-..~i~ d.~,, ~ .dt;~., ~' .~ t~,,~ ; ~Z~ TheUd~ead~ilne of sui)mlttlno proposal5 sh;ul~be stit~,d, as well as tho tentative date on which a contract cleclslon wi II be r&~de. This latter point enables the consultant to forecast staff time In the community and specify time periods In the proposal. MEMO I(evhlWaring -3- . July lB, 1976 So much for the RFP process. Now comes the more difficult task ~ evaluating the pro- posals al~ choosing a consultant. The ICM^ report entitled Procedures for Retaining Public Works Consultants, (Management Information Services Report, Volume 7, Number #, April 1975) provides a very useful analysis. However, the report is aimed at large scale public works proJectc,. Adopting the pointers in thai. report to our planning grant experience suggest a fairly unsophisticated two-stage review process. Eva luau ag.. Proposal s. A two stage process seems to occur in practice, although i~ot sharply or formally defined. The tlrst phase narrows down the choice among cmlsultants through tho evaluation of their proposals. A fairly straightforward method of conducting this Initial evaluation is through the construction of a matrix based upon those factors Important for the completion of the project, and Important to tho community It- self. The ordlna~t~might Include such components as the total cost specified by the firm, their time-frame, size and expertise, planning experience, local and Alaskan experience, the time to be spent in the community's existing pro- Jects, use of local services or people, general methodology, degree of detail specified in the work program, end so on. Specific information or figures should be used In filling out the matrix whenever possible; thus, figures for cost, time- frame, time in community and so on should appear !n the matrix. Other qualitaUve terms [I.e., adequate, realistic, substantial, etc.) liberally used In the non- quantified entries will avoid the necessity of designing an entire weighting system and still produce results for an evaluation of this complexity. During this Intlal evaluation, past reports should be reviewed, as well as any other background data. Clarification or further Information can be requested from the firms. Once the evaluation matrix is completed, the various firms can be ranked or ordered on their relative merits. Some firms may be dismissed outright due to cost, per- formance, or some other factors. The ranking of others may, to some extent, depend upon trade-offs within subject areas - such as time-la-community - vs - past performance or expertise. Once the outstanding or potentially acceptable firms have been lifted out, the ' second evaluative stage appears. (If one firm is apparently far superior to the rest, this'may net occur.) The consultants remaining are probably fairly close In their proF~)sals, or have presented strong proposals that need additional clarl~c;tlon or background. The community may, contact these firms, to re- quest more Informatlono to express an Interest-In personal presentations, or to contact previous clients. MEMO Kovln Warlng -~- July I~, 1976 A personal presentation provides the colnmunity a chance to meet the project director and [perhaps) team members. There have been Instances in which the community felt the consultant did not understand the local situation or problems, and simply did not "fit" as well as another firm. it should be noted that these additional data requests. Interviews, and so on may not occur. In fact, there may be no distinct "second" phase at all. What Is · characteristic of this phase of the evaluation process is the reliance on sub- Jective or Intuitive aspects of the firms~ presentations to augment the slightly more formal analysis. GLS/msd CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. 524-79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA AMENDING SECTION 40, TITLE 1 OF THE 1979 KENAI CODE RE- LATING TO THE KENAI FIRE DEPARTMENT. WHEREAS, on or about September of 1972 the Kenai Volunteer Fire Department at an administrative meeting voted to disband as a volunteer group, and WHEREAS, it is therefore no longer necessary to make mention of a Volunteer Fire Department within the Code, as amended, and WHEREAS, the Kenai Code has recently been recodified in a 1979 version and over the coming months it will be neces- sary for the City Council to make certain technical revisions and updating of the code ordinances by repealing sections that are no longer applicable, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA as follows: Section 1. 1.40.010 of the 1979 Code (FIRE DEPARTMENT; VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT) is hereby repealed in its entirety and the following section enacted in lieu :hereof, so that said section as enacted will read as follows: Section 2. 1.40.010 FIRE DEPARTMENT. There shall be a Fire Department, the head of which shall be the Fire Chief, appointed by the City Manager for an indefinite term. The Fire Chief shall be an officer of the city and shall have the supervision and control of the Fire Department. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 3rd day of October, 1979. ATTEST: VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, ~ity Clerk ~irst Reading: September 19, 1979 Second Reading: October 3, 1979 Effective Date: November 3, 1979 fl- CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. 525-79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF TITLES 1, 2, 12, 15 & 20 OF THE 1979 KENAI CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has recently revised the Code of the City of Kenai, and WHEREAS, it is contemplated that certain corrections in the Code will be made over the following months in order to update various code ordinances as they presently exist, and WHEREAS, certain provisions in Titles 1, 2, 12, 15 & 20 are in need of minor clarification and revision, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA as follows: Section 1: 1.35.010 of the 1979 Kenai Code (Police Department) ~ hereby amended by deleting and rescinding the second paragraph of that section starting with "provided... and ending with "...City." Section 2. 1.35.020 of the 1979 Kenai Code (Powers & Duties) is hereby amended by deleting from that section the words "writs, executions" from the sixth sentence thereof. Section 3. 2.30.010 of the 1979 Kenai Code (Drunken- ness t-~Certain Places Prohibited) is hereby repealed. Section 4. 12.25.010 (Abandoned Vehicles; Removal) is hereby amended to repeal paragraph 3 thereof and adopting in its place the following revision: 3. A peace officer of an authorized employee of the City who reasonably believes that a vehicle has been abandoned, may have the vehicle moved by the nearest available Alaska Transportation Commission's approved agency, or have the vehicle removed to the nearest garage or other place for impoundment and storage. Removal of an abandoned vehicle from private property shall be on the written request of the owner or person in lawful possession or control of the property. Except in cases where the vehicle is removed by an authorized AT~-approved agency, a written report of the removal shall be sent immediately to the City Clerk, describing the vehicle, the date, time and place of Ord. 525-79, Page 2 removal, the grounds for removal, and place of im- poundment of the vehicle. Upon receipt of the removal report, the Clerk shall provide written notification by certified mail to the vehicle owner of record and to lien holders of records, stating the grounds for re- moval and the name of the place of impoundment of the vehicle; however, notice is not required if the retail value of an abandoned vehicle is $200 or less. If the vehicle is not registered in the State, the Clerk shall make a reasonable effort to notify the registered owner or any lien holder of removal and the place of impound- ment of the vehicle. Nothing herein shall prevent any peace officer from having any vehicle removed by virtue of other code sections hereunder, state statutes or to otherwise prevent a hazard to traffic or pedestrians. Section 5. Article 5, Chapter 15 of the 1979 Kenai Code i~ hereby amended to add a new section numbered 5.15.060 entitled "Penalty" which shall read: Any person failing to comply with, or violate any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an ordinance infraction, and upon conviction shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $100. Every day upon which a violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. Section 6. Article 5, Chapter 20 of the 1979 Kenai Code ~'s hereby amended to add the following section 5.20.080 entitled "Penalty" which sh~l! read: Any person failing to comply with, or violate any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an or- dinance infraction, and upon conviction shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $100. Every day upon which a violation shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 3rd day of October, 1979. VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR ATTEST: First Reading: September 19, 1979 Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Second Reading: October 3, 1979 Effective Date: November 3, 1979 CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. 526-79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA ADOPTING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF KENAI 1979 REVISION, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS KENAI MUNICIPAL CODE, AND PRO- VIDING THAT SAID CODE BE KEPT UP TO DATE BY THE USE OF A LOOSE-LEAF SYSTF~. WHEREAS, the City of Kenai presently has its ordinances of a general and permanent nature codified in the Code of the City of Kenai, Alaska 1963, and WHEREAS, said code of ordinances has been amended from time to time; the last such revision being in 1967, and WHEREAS, said Code is in need of updating to include therein all existing code ordinances~revisions of existing code ordinances and additional ordinances of a permanent and general nature adopted since the last revision, and WHEREAS, Section 2-15 of the City Charter provides that the permanent and general ordinances of the City shall be codified and published in book or pamphlet format least every ten years, unless the Coungil, by use of a loose-leaf system, provides for keeping th~code up to date, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it would be more advantageous to the public to have the Code kept up to date by a loose-leaf system whereby the latest ordinances of a permanent and general nature could be added to said loose- leaf system in codified form, and WHEREAS, Book Publishing Company has b~en contracted to publish a 1979 Revision of the Code with the aid of the City's legal department, which Code has been completed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA as follows: Section 1. The Code of the City of Kenai, Alaska 1979, Revision (referred to as Kenai Municipal Code) indexed and published by Book Publishing Company which is bound in a red loose-leaf binder system, is hereby adopted as the Code of the City of Kenai, as a revision and updating of the 1963 Kenai Code as amended. Ordinance 526-79, Page 2 Section 2. The Kenai Municipal Code shall be kept up to date by updating of the loose-leaf system with new code ordinances on a regular basis. Section 3. The City Clerk shall inspect and approve the Kena~ Municipal Code and all revisions made thereof. A copy of the Kenai M~icipal Code shall be kept in the office of the City Clerk and shall be open for public inspection. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 3rd day of October, 1979. ATTEST: VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, City Clerk First Reading: September 19, 1979 Second Reading: October 3, 1979 Effective Date: November 3, 1979 CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-128 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA URGING THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA TO INCREASE THE STAFF OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THE KENAI PENINSU~% BY ONE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND ONE CLERICAL POSITION. WHEREAS, due to the heavy criminal case load on the Kenai Peninsula, the two prosecutors assigned to the Kenai Peninsula are unable to adaquately handle the criminal case calendaring in the four courts in the three peninsula cities of Kenai, Seward and Homer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the Governor and the Legislature of the State of Alaska be urged to increase the staff of the District At- torney's office on the Kenai Peninsula by one assistant district attorney and one clerical position through reassignment of present position allocations statewide. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THIS 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST: VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, City Clerk CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE ON AGING, IN THE~24OUNT OF $40,200 FOR AN ADDITION TO FORT KENAY. ~FHEREAS, the State of Alaska has offered the City of Kenai a gr~nt for $40,200, which represents 75% of the proposed cost of an addition to Fort Kenay, and ~[EREAS, this grant offer must be formally approved by the City of Kenai. NOW, THEP~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, that this grant offer of $40,200 from the State of Alaska is hereby accepted. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST: VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, 'City Clerk Approved by Finance: CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-130 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THAT THE FOLLOWING TRANSFER OF MONIES BE MADE IN THE 1979-80 AIRPORT LAND SYSTEM BUDGET: From: Airport Land-Contingency ($2,000) To: Airport M & O-Repair and Maintenance Supplies $2,000 This transfer is needed to purchase runway/taxiway lighting supplies for the remainder of the fiscal year. The depletion in this account is primarily due to the cost of gravel which was not anticipated in the budget. The contingency balance, after this transfer, is $11,430. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THIS 19th day of September, 1979. VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR ATTEST: Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Approved by Finance: ~.~ CITY OF KENAI ~ ~/ RESOLUTION NO. 79-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR LOCAL SERVICE ROADS & TRAILS PROGRAM FUNDS. f~ WHEREAS, the City presently has $66,958 o & T funds, and WHEREAS, it is expected that $34,000 of LSR & T funds will become available in each of years 1981 and 1982, and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has requested that the City of Kenai submit a list of projects approved by the Council stating priorities, scope of work, location of project, and amount of local government participating funds. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the following list of Friorities for LsR & T program funds be established: LSR& T ~ (1) Lights Willow St. ' $60,000 ~ $75,000. (2) 00repletion of Lights Willow St. 65,000 ~ - (3) widening, curbs, ~p/tt~rs Airport Way- 60,000 ' 40,000 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THIS 19th day of September, 1979. '~2TEST: VINCENT o"REI~LY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Approved by Finance:~'-/~.~. ! .: I! Section ~ This resolution shall be of no force and effect until U~ion Marathon Oil agrees in writing that this assignment and the consequent introduction of gas into the City limits of Kenai by Alaska Gas will not constitute an extraneous purchase of gas by the City within the meaning of the City's agreement with Marathon-Union Oil dated May 17, 1966 (called the "Gas contract") and an extension thereof so as to in any way limit the volume of gas which the City is entitled to pursuant to the contract. CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-133 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA CONSENTING TO THE PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF FRANCHISE OF KENAI UTILITY SERVICE CORPORATION TO ALASKA GAS & SERVICE COMPANY. W~AEREAS, Kenai Utility Service Corporation (hereinafter "KUSCO") has a franchise with the City of Kenai for supply of natural gas to the City of Kenai which franchise is set forth in Ordinance 115 of the City of Kenai, and WHEREAS, the City Council was approached at the last regular City Council meeting by representatives of KUSCO and Alaska Gas & Service Company (hereinafter "Alaska Ga~ with a proposal to allow Alaska Gas to service with gas the residents within the City of Kenai on the south side of the Kenai ~iver for the reason that Alaska Gas was in the position to immediately supply gas to said residents because of existing pipe lines in the area owned by Alaska Gas, and WHEREAS, it would not be economically feasible at this time for KU$CO to extend a line to this area, and WHEREAS, KUSCO is agreeable to partially assigning its franchise right to service the City of Kenai to Alaska Gas, solely to the extent of allowing Alaska Gas to serve that area within the City on the south side of Kenai River, and WHEREAS, Section 8-3 of the Charter of the City of Kenai permits the sale or assignment of a franchise with the consent of the Counsel provided that the purchaser or assignee shall be subject to the terms of the franchise, the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the City of Kenai. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to 8-3 of the Kenai City Charter the City Council hereby consents to the partial assignment of franchise rights from KUSCO to Alaska Gas of only that area within the City of Kenai on the south side of the Kenai River provided that the partial assignee, Alaska Ga~ shall be subject to the terms of the franchise (Ordinance 115), the provisions of the City Charter, the ordinances of the City. Resolution No. 79-133, Page 2 Section 2. This resolution shall have no force or effeci ~nl'es~ ~d ,~ti[ the authorized officer of each service company mentl'u~ei above shall have signed this resolution in the al~.opriate place indicating their consent to the transfer and agreement to abide by the terms of the franchise, charter and ordinances, and further this resolution shall have no force or effect unless and until the Alaska Public Utilities Commission has issued the amendment to the service area certificates under the conditions as set forth in Section 3 Section 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to advise the Alaska Public 0tilities Commission that the City of Kenai has no objection to the issuance of an amendment ~o the service area certificates to Alaska C~s & Service Company, Division of Alaska Interstate Company, which would add the area lying 'south' of the ienai River and within the corporate limits of the City of Kenai, it being agreed that a fee of two percent (2%1 of the gross revenues so realized will be payable to the City of Kenai on or before March 15 of each year as ~Onsideration for right of way within said City of Kenai property, and it being further agreed that gas utility service be ~ade available not later than October 1, 1980. PA~SED BY THE COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF KENAI, AI2%SIiA this 19th day of September, 1979. VINC~iT O'REI~LY, NAYOR ATTEST ~ ~ue C. Peter, City Clerk Alaska ~as & Service Company hereby agrees to all the terms and conditions set forth in the above resolution and as a condition to receiving City Council consent to the partial transfer above described agrees to be firmly bound thereby including the agreement to abide by all of the terms of the franchise (Ordinance 115) in the same_ way as Kenat Utility Service Corporation . must abide thereby and agrees Lo abide by the City Charter and city ordinances. DATED (indicate corporate authority to sign this agreement) Kenai utility Service Corporation hereby agrees with the partial assignment as above described and agrees to its obligations pursuant to its franchise (Ordinance I15] and duty to abide by the City Charter and City ordinances remains intaCt as it relates to that part of the franchise ~ot partially assigned. DATED: By: Title (indicate corporate authority to sign this agreement~ II II SPECIAL USE PEI3IIT (~ot to be used for a period of tine in excess of one year} DATE o The CI'TY OF KE.~AI for the considerations and pursuant to the conditions ~-.~ rcquire=ents set forth below hereby grants to: Company ~a~e: WIEU AIR ALASKA -. Authorized Representative: Billing Address: 4leo INTEF~A?ZO~L AIRPORT hereinafter sectaries referred to as the ?E~IX~'tEECS] the right fiu~D~nt ~toraae on a lot 150'x ~OO~ .... 1. Tern: This special use permit shall co~ence on the ' 20th _~.yof September , 19 79 , and shall extend to and through the._x.9.t=~day o~ Seote~ber , 19 80 - 2. Pernit Fees: The Pe.-~ittee(s), prior to the exercise of any privilege granted pursuant to this per,it, shall pay for the use or privilege specified herein a fee as indicated below: (a) A total fee of $ 1,500.~0 in full payment for the use of privilege specif~ed h~re~n. (b} A total fee o£ $ 1.500.00 payable tn 12 ~ont~ly installments co~encing on the first day of the tern hereof in the amount of $ 125.O0 and additional subsequent Installments tn the anount of $ 0 · payable 0 {c} A{ee computed at the rate of $ .10 9er square foot ,. (d} In addition to t~e foregoing payments, ~ees and rents spec~fied ~bove, the Per=Jttee[s} agrees to pay to the City .. S75.00 SALE5 TAx. $. R~t~ht of Entry; Bntry and occupancy is authorized as of the 20th ~aZ of ~Sept~mber ,,, 19, 79 . 4. Place and Time of Payments: All payments shall be made on or before khe date due t°. the ~ity Clerk, City Administration Building, Ke~ai, Alaska, or by eailing to the following address: City Of Kenai, ~ox 580, ~nai, Alaska 99611. S. Use: The use by the Per~tttee(s) of the preatses described above is lr~-[ted to the purposes specifiod herein and is not intended to grant any exclusive use to the described premises unless otherwise provided above. This use is also subject to the reasonable ad~iniso trative actions of the City of [cnai for the protection and ~aintextance of the premises and of adjacent and contiguou~ lands or facilities. Page One, SPECIAl. USE PER;-IIT or privilezc~ ~ra~tcJ, and to 1,3~ all co~t~ co~vct~-d therewith.. In this connectior:, the }'er~itt~-e{~} agr~e~ to ~rrangc and pay ~or ail the following: (al Public liability insurance protectin~ both the City and/or its agents and the Per~ittee(~), such insurance to be e~idcnced certificate oi insurance showing the insurance in force. The anoont of such public liability insurance shall have limits not le;s than those kno~r~ as (b) Pernittee(s) agrees to carr~ e~ployer's liability insurance and ~ork~n's Co=pen~ation in=arance, .~n~ to furnish a certificate thereof to the Cityo ~ (c) Insurance contracts ~roviding liability insurance and ~or~nen*s Cv~en~ztion shall pro.ida for not less than thirty (~0) d~ys ~rttten notice to the City of cancellation or expiration or substantial change in policy co~itions and coverage. (d} Pernittee(s) agrees that ~aiver of subrogation again~ ~. ~orebeara~ce: ~ail~re ~o insist ~on a ~trtct co~liance referre8 to, shall not constitute or be con~trued as a ~aiver or relinqut~h=~n~ o~ the riiht to ezercise ~uch te~s~ conditions or ~equir~ts. 8. ~ulations: ~e exercise of the u~e granted herein is at ~. ~nicipal Albert title~ "!anal ~icipal Airport Regolatio~s", ~ i~ued in 1976. gy ~igning tht~ ~e~it~ the Per~itt~(~) acknowledges hin~elf therc-~ith and ~tlI ~or~ly ~ith the requirenents o{ said ~egulation~. ~. $olicitation~: Solicitation of donations or the pro=orion or ~erati~ et any ~rt or king of business or co~mercial enterprise not ~nt~lateg by thi~ Speci~l ~e Per, it opon~ in or above airport lands ~lthout the vrttten consent o{ the Ctty~ i~ prohibited. ' 10. ~val of Property: Any or all personal or real propert~ placed or uae~ upon i~ds or in facilttie~ in violation o~ the preceding prohibitio~s ~y be re~oved ~nd/or tnpoundeg by the City of ~e~i~ and ~hen ~o re~oved and/or i~poonged, ~och proper~y na~ be ted~e~ed by the wxner thereof only upon the paynent ~o ~h~ ~i~y o~ the co,ts of r~oval plus storage charges of $1.00 per day. By glV£II UI~DER P?[ Il]diD AIID SEAL OF OFFICE, this: day of ,,, 19, I~/ Co~ission £xpi res DIVISION OF FOREST, LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT SOLff NCENT RAL DIS TRICY OFFICE 6ff. ~AR~,~..,~kR~x x 94I East Dowling Road Anchorage, '" ~, 99502 This is in response to your recent request to obtain title to Beaver Creek Park under AS 38.05.315. [t appears that the City's desire to further develop the site as a park is within the public and charitable use provisions of the cited statute. Consequently, we are forwarding an application for sale or lease of State lands Which should be completed and returned to the above address, Attn: [4r. Ray Mann. along with the appropriate filing fee. Once received, your request will be serialized and processed as expeditiously as possible, We should note that it is also possible to reflegotiate the existing lease for the purpose of reducing the annual rent to a nomiltal ~nount, i.e. $! per year. !f~thts alternative were pursued it would substantially reduce the amount of/time required to pro~ess your request. If you would like to pursue reis approach, please request a renegotiation of the lease in k~iting and disregard the enclosed applications. Regardless of the approach selected, we will do all in our pouer to assist the City in obtaining lands for public purposes. St ncerely, L. A. Outton By~~~n~,..Dtstrtct Mana r ~ ;4un~clpal Selections Officer cc: dehn Pereyra, Seleetna Area Office lO.J? HILL engineers planners. scientists City of Kena:i. P. Oo Box 580 Kenai, A~ 99611 Ancflomge Office 310 K SIreel. Suile 602 Anchorage. Alaska, 99501 90?!279-(~91 D~e 17 Auqust 1979 Job No. K12720.00 ~iem R~,No. Invoi~ No, 9886 Al'I~: )ir. Charles Brown Actin9 Cit~7 l~naget STATEMENT For profess£onal se~v£ces through 24 July 1979, £nconnec~ion with ~_e~er~V_~o_Je~._d!si_i~g~~. For detail reqardinq this billin9 period refer to Proc~ess Report No. 4. Professtonal Sez~£ces Expenses ltinoritySubconsultant (Ymstafa, l~ong) Fee 85,108.38 5,315.81 4,169.45 . 2,406.36 NIOUI~T DLTE ....................... $177000.00, f APP~O~'"D ~T CITY OF I~(~I'Y CLERK ............................. DUE AND PAYABLE ON RECEIPT OF STATEMENT. FINANCE CHARGES, COMPUTED BY A "PERIODIC RATE" OF 1% PER MONTH, WHICH IS AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 12% (APPLIED TO THE PREVIOUS MONTH'S BALANCE AFTER DEDUCTING PAYMENTS AND CREDITS FOR THE CURRENT MONTH), WiLL BE CHARGED ON ALL PAST-DUE AMOUNTS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW OR BY CONTRACT. .© lB 49 ~B PERIODIC ESTI,~ATE FOR PARTIAL PAYt)£r4T IK)X ~0 J(~ ;IAI, ALASKA i. COST OF WORK COMPLETED TO DATE UHDER OPIGINAL CO~TRACT OIILY ~1.~ (l) tht,~ (5). I'~,tc'~ da~ ~)~n m c~l~ l, C~lumn (9), ~ow p~c~t t~tio M column (7) to column OB TREf~ EXCJ~ATfOt~ A~D ~K~'IL~ 83~,l~10" ;2,340 · 70 UECHA/IICAL COUP~CTi01,1 $7'~,.00 ~ ;750.00 FURfJlSH AND If~STAU. PiPE CAS- I/IG, 20' S'ID. wT. STEEl. 67,768. b0 FURNISH M~;D If((STRLL 12" D.I.R 86I~4J420 WAt'r.r.r.~ MAIIi xoo! TOTAL OF COST COLUMM$ 153~24 O0 2. $CHEDuL'[ 0F COt~TRACT CH&t~GE TOTALS $1,080. $1,080. .$5,412. S5,412. 90 3. ANAI. Y$I$ OF ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUY/T TO DATE 4,A#ALYSIS OF ~Rg P~RFOR~ED ~bt Ez,J w~ ~,f~m,d rodale fc.t. s ~-*j $I ~O80.00 -- (c~ T~JI ~ et ',~k ~rfme~d ~o dare $154,891.10 / ~;) ~ALA~CE DUE THIS PAY~T .~x .... ~"~'~'~-',~J:i"x ~"'~'~ / 'r/ .... ~' ...................... ' · 159t~P4 O0 $1,080.00 $5,412,90 S154.891.10 /- ~ , ,-Oy ,, , ,~154~891.10 ~, S138.429.99',/ 6. CERTIFICATIOt4 OF ARCHITECT OR ~tIGII~EER 7. PRE.PAYM£tIT CERTIFICATIOli BY FIELD £tJGItJ£EH NORCON, INC. bURINESS PARK RLVD ANCtlORAGEo ALASKA 99503 PHONE 21G-2012 August 15, 1979 City of Kenai Kenai, Alaska Attention: Keith Kornelis City Engineer Subject: Kenai Airport Project #6-02-0142-04 and #6-02-0142-05 Kenai, AlasKa Dear Sir: The final punch list being duly completed on the Kenai Airport Project and verified by Mr. Jim Swally, Airport Manager, we submit request for the 10 per cent retainage in the amount of $124,776.59. Yours truly, Norcon, Inc. *'./,. ~/~.:,'~ Lloyd E. Sci~illin~ Project Manager ~ r, rTY MANAGER ~ :*./o,.,..uc WORKS_ X"~.~ .... U A~rOnNr~ .......----------' ~'~ITY CU[RK [1 --'"-"""- GPIGU4AL, COPY TO ----L~'.-~''~'~--~ "" CONT?AgTOR'S FINAL t~LL'~CE CER?IFIC;~TE PROJECT 1979 Improvements el Kcnoj l-l,u~icipnl Airport, Kenai, Alaska This Release and Certffica~ is made in accordance with the provisions of by the Nore~n... .-'v~.-~, v~~v- , hereinafter referred to as "CONTHAOTOR" and CITY O~ KE;L~I, hereinafter referred to as "O':~rER." In consideration of payments made heretofore, or to be made, by O?~IER to CONTRACTOR for labor, materials, and sea'vices furnished by CONTRACTOR in the performance of said Contract, CONTRACTOR hereby unconditionally releases U.'~fER, its Officers, Agents, Employees, Assigns or Heirs from any and all liens and claims whatsoever arising out of or during the performance of said Contract other tPmn such claims, if any, that may with the consent of' U:0~.'ER, be specifically accepted from the terms of this Release and Certificate, s~ated on ~neet 1, attached hereto (or, if none, so state): No,e and in further consideration of the aforesaid payments as CONTRACTOR being first duly sworn, further affirms and certifies under penalty or perJu~j that all labor, materials and services of every nature by whomsoever furnished in connection ~ith the performances of said Contract and all applicable state and federal payroll taxes and payroll insurance have been paid and CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to indemnify O~'~IER against, and hold it harmless of and from, all liens, claims, demands, penalftfes, losses, costs, damages and liability in any m,_nner whatsoever heretofore or hereafter arising out of or in respect of any claim by any person or governmental agency for payment for work, labor, services or materials heretofore or hereafter performed, furnished, or rendered under or pursuant to or in respect of the performance of said Contract or the aforesaid applicable taxes and insurance. Executed this 17Lh ( Corporate Seal ) day of August, 19 7__9. Norton, Inc. ( Contractor ¥iee President. (O£ftc~al Tit~e (If the CONTRACTOR is a corporation, the following Certificate %.rill be executed). I, Ho,nrd A. St:renqer , certify that I am the Vice President of the Corporation executing this Release and Certificate: that H. S~r~,mr who signed this Release and Certificate on behalf of CONTRACTOR was then Vice President of said Corporation: that said Release and Certificate was duly sf~'ned for and on behalf of said Corporation by authority of its governing body, and is within the scope of its corporate powers. Page 1 of 2 (COIIT'D) STATE OF Alaska BOROUGH OF Anchorage Subscribed and mvorn to be£ore me thio 17Lb day of'Amluat , 19 79 NotSTy I~-bt!e in and for *~aid S-gate September 14, 1979 MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: b~yor and the Council of the City of Kenai Keith Kornelis, Director of Public Works What's Happening Report for City Council Meeting September 19, 1979 AIRPORT,~A~'- W~TER, SEWERt,,AND STREETS The final inspection on this project was held on September 12, 1979 at 10:30 a.m. A punch list has been drawn up of miscellaneous small items that need to be completed prior to final payment. RENOVATION OF WELL HOUSE 101 Rockford Corp. is completing the piping within the Well House itself. Their subcontractor, ~ildwood Construction, has Completed their tie-in from the main to the ~ell House. Their subcontractor, City Electric, plans to start installation of electrical gear some time next week. KENAI SPUR WATER MAIN Wildwood Construction Company has completed this project. Even though there were some minor construction problems, it has been completed and is in good shape. Ted Forsi and Asso. has done a fantastic job of inspection on this project.. They have handled the project in a very professional manner and have submitted the proper documents and letters to protect the City against any questions that may arise from the auditors or others. MODIFICATIONS TO LIFT STATIONS This project has been completed except for the installation of hinges on Lift Station No. Z. I/hat's Happening Report Page 2 September 14, 1979 INSTALLATION OF STREET SIGNS Tolchina Excavating is planning to start up the installation of street signs again sometime next week. KENAI GRAVEL BIDS Bob Borgen plans to start hauling pravel for the City sometime next week. MISCELLANEOUS ITE~ Water and Sewer crews have been busy working on the sanitary sewer service line to the Animal Shelter. They have also been working on the dewatering next to the broken fire hydrant behind the Jr. High School. There is a very strong possibility that we may have a main line break near this fire hydrant. This was discovered after digging down to set the well points for dewatering. It is possible that the main has been leaking next to this fire hydrant for over four years. Because the water table is so high in this area, we may have been pumping into the underground stream therefore going undetected at the surface. ~e are also working on the drains from the underground pumphouse to the drainage canal next to the 3 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank. CRESSWELL WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES Mrs. Cressw~11 and I visited the site and agreed upon the location of the water and sewer service lines. Instead of simply ending the water line and burying it for future contractor to tie onto it, Mrs. Cresswell agreed to pay the material costs for a valve and a valve box and that the City of Kenai would install them. ~e started t~ order the materials and in fact made one asphalt pavement cut at the location when the Cresswells discovered that they hed a disagreement with the Resolution concerning ghe tap fees. After I explained that the present tap fees were $400 for water service and $400 for sewer service, they disagreed with the costs. ~e had read the Resolution to them and they had signed it but did not realize the costs of the tap fees. The Cresswells feel that they should be charged the cost of the tap fees that were in effect in 1964 when the line was run. After conferring with Charles Brown we feel that it was the intention of Council that the present tap fees were to be paid. After passing this on to Mrs. Cresswe11, she would like to address Council and is on this upcoming agenda. She has also mentioned the possibility of not being able to start construction next year. I feel that it would be to the Cityts advantage to wait until she is ready to build her house and then put the water and sewer lines in. This may also be to her advantage since we would have the lines uncovered to her property line and easier for the private contractor to complete the installation. ~hat's ttappening Report Page 3 September 14, 1979 The City of Kenai has sent a letter to Alaska Department of Transportation concerning tho !v~inetion on ~illow Street. letter is attached. ]'his The City of genai has also sent another letter to the Alaska Department of Transportation concerning street maintenance of ~illow due to construction. This letter is also attached. I have received a verbal reply from Guy Green of Alaska Department of Transportation stating that normally during the winter shut down the contractor, DOT, and the City inspect the final condition of the roadway prior to shut down and is left in maintenance shape for the winter for maintenance by the City. He stated that if the City is to pursue this further then the Commissioner would have to make a decision concerning whether or not the Alaska Dept. of Transportation Maintenance Division would handle the winter maintenance. He feels that since the-City of Kenai is getting close to a million dollars worth of improvements to one of their roads, that the least they could do is to maintain it during the winter. F/iA, Real Estate and Utilities Branch, has stated that they have no objections to relocating the power line across the City lease lots. They have also stated that this relocation of power lines and communication lines would have to be paid for by the City of Kenai. HEA has given us a cost of over $15,000 for the relocations. If we are going to pursue this further, we are going to have to go out for bid for the relocation. I have contacted HEA concerning the utility easement for these lines. Nr. Tim Evans of HEA out of Homer said that he could not find a utility easement across the property lines for this powerline. After some investigation, he believes that the FAA line proceeds even the Kenai Electric Asso. and that HEA actually bought this line from FAA for $Io There is not enough money in the budget to cover this re]ocatlon, ~e need Council direction. SELECTION OF ARCHITECT FOR THE NE~ KENAI CITY HALL Please see my attached memo dated September I1, 1979. I have set up the following tentative schedule subject to changes by the Council. September 14, 5 p.m. September 17, September 19 October 3 October 17 Proposals due at City ltall - Organize the Proposals to make sure they are bound and ready to be presented - Submit Proposals to Council ~ith a suggestion that a Public ~orks Committee review them in depth and possibly narro~ down the Proposals to three firms. - Submittal of three Proposals as decided by the Public ~orks Committee - Three firms present their ideas to the Council. Final decision to be made that night or at a work session. ~¢Hat's llappenin~ Report Page 4 September 14, 1979 It is hopeful that an award can be made to an Architect on November 7, 1979. The Architect could then could use the months of ~ovember through February to complete the design and final Bid Documents for a bid date in early March. The contractor could use the remainder of,~larch, April and May for purchasing and delivery of materials with a construction start date of the first part of June. STREET CRE~ The Street Crew has been working on: Drain ditch on Linnwood Rebuilding retainage wall along Linnwood Driveway Hauling garbage Picking up old street signs Picking up oil from service stations Oiling streets Blading streets Repairing new street name sign brackets SHOP Replumbed and replaced pump on street oiler Started vehicle winterizing Regular maintenance on City vehicles I~ATER AND SEI~ER CREX~/ Putting guard posts around fire hydrants and valves Worked on Lift Stations and manholes Placed locks on Lift Stations and ~ell Houses Worked on Animal Control sewer line t'lorked on fire hydrant behind Jr. High Worked on drain at underground pumphouse KK/jet September 7, 1979 CITY O,c KENAI d P. O- ~OX 580 K~tlAI, ALASKA 9961 T~EPHOtdE 283 · 753S Mr. Dean Reddick Alaska Department of Transporation Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Re: gillow Street Illumination Dear blt. Reddick: The Council of the City of Kenai has decided to reject the expenditure of $200,000 for the bid that the Department of Transportation received for illumination of ~illow Street. Although the City of Kenai feels that this project is of great importance for safety, we do not have funds necessary for completion of this project. The City of Kenai requests at this time that the Alaska Department of Transportation try to negotiate with the general contractor for the installation of all the wiring and concrete bases shown on your project plans. ~e would also like to include the lights at the intersections along ~illow Street. These lights are numbered on your plans as ~o. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 17. By installing these lights, we would at least have illumination at the intersections along ~illow Street with the possibility of future expansion when and if the money comes available. The funds Ne have available are $135,000 and should be considered as a not-to-exceed figure. The City of Kenai does appreciate this and the other ~'ork that you have done on its behalf. Sincerely, Keith Kornelis, Director Department of Puhlic l¥orks ~/jet September 7, 1979 CITY OF KENAI ¥ P. O. ~X ~0 K~I~. ~A 99611 TE[EPHOIIE 28~ - 7535 Mr. Dean Reddick Alaska Department of Transportation Pouch 6900 Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Re: ~illow Street Kenai SOS - 1(019) Dear Mr. Reddick: The Council of the City of Kenai is very disturbed that ~illow Street may be in a state of repair throughout the winter and spring breakup. It is regretable that this project was bid so late in the construction season. Willow Street is a City street which is maintained by the City o£ Kenai's maintenance crews. Please notify the Kenai Public Works Department of the date.that the street needs to be turned over to the Alaska State Department of Transportation for this project. The City of Kenai will not maintain Willow Street from the construction start date to the final completion of the pro~ect. If this project starts this construction season and is not completed until next year, please make arrangements for maintenance of ~illow Street between the two construction period~. Please feel free to contact Keith Kornelis, Public ~orks Director, or ~nysel£ at any time.concerning this. Sincerely, Charles Brown Acting City Manager KK/jet AGE:H}A FOR Till.: I',F. GULAR ASSt3!!.q.Y !-!!:.F. TING SEPTEXllH!R 4, 1979; 7:~0 1'.14. ~;.;~.,~:;~;; ;::_;:4 P. O. BOX 850 SOLDOT:;A o AI.,~SICn. 99669 B. C. D. E. F. -AGEN.DA- CALL TO ORDER AI;D ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SEATING OF NEW ASSEHBL~,-IE,~IBERS (none) AG£NI)A APPROVAL APPROVAL OF MIItUTIi~ OF AUOUIil' Zi, i9Y9 ORI)INA,'{CE HEARINGS, OR OTilER PUBLIC HEARINGS Ord. 79-49 "Acknowledging Receipt of Authorization to Expend Certain Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant Funds and Increasing Estimated CEIP Revenues and Appropriations" (a) CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS (a) Res. 79-122 "Establishing Pay and Benefits for On-Call Nikiski Fire Department Personnel" (with agreement) (b) Res. 79-125"R~vising tho Borough Records Retention Schedule" (c) Res. 79-i27 "Authorizing the Disposal of borough Records k~hich Are Outdated and Scheduled /or Disposal'Under the Borough's Record Management System" (d) Res. 79-128 "A Resolution Transferring the Sum of ~,000 to Broadcast the Meetings of the Assembly" (e) Res. 79-129 "Accepting the Proposal of · TranS~l'ask~ Engineoring/URS Company to Prepare a Solid ~aste Disposal Plan and Authorizing Execution of a Contra~t" (f) Res. ?~-150 "Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into Negotiations with M-B Contracting Company for the Paving of the Seward Elementary School Tennis Courts" Res. 79-151 "Urging the State o£ Alaska to SUpport thd State of Nevada in Asserting State Rights of Management of Federal Lands" Res. 79-152 "Classifying Lands Forealosed ~ythe Borough for Delinquent Real gcoperty Taxes and Authorizing a Land Sale of Tax Foreclosed Properties" (h) H~ INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES Ord. 79-S6 "Providing for the Contract Zoning ~in Parcel o£ Real Property Lying Mtthin the Seward Nunicipal District" ia) Page Re. 1 I 1 1 as A~ended I as Amended I Enacted Defeated Adopted 2 Adopted 2 Failed 1 Adopted 2 Adopted 3 Postponed to 9/18 3 Adopted Set for Hearing AGENDA FOR MI,~TES OF SEPTEblBER 4, 1979 Page No. ih) -Ord. 79-$7 "Rezoning Lot 1, Block 2, Forest ~l~-gh~b-~rvision, City of Homer from Residential (R), to Co~unercial (C) District" I. FORMAL PRESENTATIONS ~ITH PRIOR NOTICE (a) Nr. Truman Knutson; Borough land sale 1 J. CO/4~ITTEE REPORTS 4 (a) School Board (Ambarian] (b) OEDP (Fischer/Moses) (c) Finance (Hille/Cooper/Crav£ord/~icCloud/Corr/Uouglas) (d) Solid Baste (Fischer/Martin/Cooper) (e) Roads and Trails (Long/Martin/Corr) Ports and llarbors (Arness/Campbell/Ambarian) (g) Local Affairs (Campbell/Ambarian/Dimmick/Arness) ~IAYOR*SREPORT (a) Memo re: Property Location Grid and Numbering System in the Borough (b) Memo 80-28-"NACo Public Land Steering Committee- Nevada Lands Bill" L. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION REPORT M. OTHER BUSINESS (a) Waiver of Time for Filing for Disability Exemption; Clef' bIoore (b) Tax Adjustment Requests (c) Memo re: Vehicle Purchases o · (d) Memo re: likiski Fire Service Area VBF Portable Radio Bids 4 Set for Hearing S Ackno~ledge~ $ Acknowledge~ S - Approved Approved S Approved ~Approved ASSEMBLY AND MAYOR'S CO)gqENTS IRIBLIC COMmeNTS INFORblATIONAL ltATERIALS A,~D REPORTS Cc) NOTICE OF NEXT bfEETIN6 AND ADJOURNbfENT 5 $ School Board Agenda, 9-3-79, Ne~s in Brief, 8-20-79 School Board minutes, August 6, 1979 Plat Committee, 8-6-79, 7-16-79 Nikiski Fire Service Area, 8-8-79 Dept. of Labor, NEI~S, July KENA! PtiNI/~SULA BOROUGh! TIlE ltl!Gill,AR A.qSE~II~I.Y I. IEETiNG SEPTIi.~II~ER 4, 1979; 7:30 P.N. BOROUGII AII.~IINISTRATIOig BUILDING SOLDOTNA~ ALASKA. A. CALL T.O ORDER AND ROLL CALL Pres. JoAnn Ellen called the regular assembly mecting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Assemblymembers Hille, Long, Martin, lloses, ~cCloud, A~batian, Cooper~ Crawford ~Diuunick, ~ouglas, Elson, Fischer; Adm. Asst. Baxley, Planning Director ~aring, Finance Director Barton, Assessor Thomas~ Engineer Conyers ABSENT: Assemblymembers Arness, Campbell, Curt, Davis SArrived late B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. SEATING OF NESf ASSEbtBL¥.~IEIlBERS (none) D. AGENDA APPROVAL The agenda was approved as submitted. The clerk suggested moving item G (e) Res. 79-129 to be heard following the ordin- ance hearing as it relates to the ordinance. There ~as no objection. E. ApPRovAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 1979 The clerk noted a correction to Page S, last paragraph of item G (a) which should indicate the 6 voting as "affirmative vote". A £urther correction was made to Page 10, item J (d) to delete Homer Transfer and change to Burton Carver Company. The minutes ~ere declared approved as amended. F. ORDINANCE HEARINGS, OR OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Ord. 79-49 "Acknowledging Receipt o£ Authori- Zation t°"Expond Certain Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant Funds and Increasing Estimated CEIP Revenues and Appropriations" ($68,000) The ordinance vas read by title only as copies were available ~or the public. Public hearing was opened and closed as no one wished to be heard. ASSE~IBLYMRMBER LONG MOVED FOR ENACT~tENT OR ORD. 79-49 AND I~ITIIOUT DI$CO$$ION IT NAS UNANIMOUSLY ~.NACTED. 1. Res. 79-129 "Accepting the Proposal of Transalaska En~i~ee~ing/URS Company to Prepare a Solid Naste Disposal Plan and Authorizing Execution of a Contract" ASSE~BLYMEMBER COOPER MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-129 AND ~ITHOUT DISCUSSION IT ~AS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS (a) Res. 79-122 "Establishing Pay and Benefits for On-Call nikiskt Fire Department Personnel" (~ith aireement) ~rs. Dimmick arrived at 7:40 p.m. ~r. ~tlle teferred to the memo from Attorney Sarisky and tho discussion of the resolution'in t~e Finance Committee. - 1 SEPTEbfBER 4t 1979 PAGE 2 was suggested the resolution be returned to the Nikiski Fire Service Area Board and Chief ~illis to ~or~ ~ith the attorney to resolve the problem. Chief ~illis urged the assembly not to drop the ~atter as it is important to the service area. Pres. Elson stated the resolution can return to the assembly at the end of 60 days and it is hoped the legal problems will be addressed during that time. QUESTION ~AS CALLED A~D RES. 79-122 ~'IAS DEFEATED BY A UNANIMOUS "NO" VOTE. {b} Res. 79-126 ""Revising the Borough Records Retention ~chedule" ASSF2.1BLY~iL~fBER COOPER ~OVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-126 ~D ~ITHOUT DISCUSSION IT ~ UN~INOUS~ ~OPTEB. (c) Res. 79-1~7 "Authorizing the Disposal of Borough Records l~ich Are Outdated and Scheduled for Dis- posal Under the Borough~s Records Management System" ~S~L~fBER MC CLOUD lfOVED FOR ~O~ION ~ ~ITHOUT DIS- CUSSION RES. 79-127 I~AS ~OPTED BY URM~IMOUS VOTE. (d) Res. 79-128 'A Resolution Transferring the sum ~f $8~000 to Broadcast the Neetings of the Assembly' ASS~LYII~IBER FISCHER MOVED FOR ~OPTIOR OF ~S. 79-128. In support of his motion Mr. Fischer stated he believed broad- casting the assembly meetings provides a needed service to the publtc~ particularly to those senior citizens ~ho are unable to attend meetings. ~ose opposing the resolution stated that very few people listen to the broadcast which is not heard borough~ide. People ~ho have a particular interest usually attend the meetings. QUESTION I~AS CALLED M~D RESOLUTION 79-128 FAILED B~ A VOTE OF 47 "YES" TO S~.9 'NO". Long, ~artin, ~oses, Douglas and Fischer voting affimativcl~. (e) Res. 79-1~9 See itoi F (a) 1. (f) Res. 79-1~0 "Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into Negotiations ~ith ~-B Contracting Company for the Paving of Seward Elementary School Tennis Courts" ASS~IBLYM~BER IIC CLOUD ~fOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-1~0. In reply to questions, Engineer Conyers reported the ~ork was not put out to bid as this'is the sole paving company in the arei. Mr. Cooper stated tho negotiated price of p~r square foot is a fair price for the paving and it should probably be done ~hilo this company is 'in the area. Those opposing the paving stated it has not been r~quested by th~ school board; if the borough has surplus funds it should apply them to more urgent needs of othe? schools. As an oxample~ Mr. Fischer reported Nikolaevsk has requested a hocker rink for sometime and are ~illing to do the ~ork themselves if the borough ~ill furnish the materi~ls. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION~ QUESTION ;fAS CALLED ~D RES. 79-130 - 2- SVAS ADOPTED BY A VOTE OF 32.5 "YES" I0 27 ":40". Long, Douglas, and Fischer voting negatively. (g) Res.. 79-1)I "Urging the State 4f Alsaks tu Support t-~e State of I;cvada in Asserting State Right of ~fanagement of Federal Lands" · ~h'. Knud~n st~ed the resolutiaa should be a~,~eaded to strike out the reference to land management and federal lands. Also the borough should send a resolution to the Alaska State Legislature urging tha.t Alaska follow sui.to A.,$ELB,.I,.,E..,BER FISCIIER MOVED TO POSTPO,~:E UNTIL SEPTI;:.IBER 18; In support of his motion he referred to the memo from :,layer Gilman which indicated he would suggest holding up action on this resolution until September 18, as additional information would be available. I. irs. Dinmick. reported she had discussed the subject with !4ayor Gilmon. At the time he ~'rote the memo he did not know that anyone was requesting a resolution and since there is one in the packet he does not object to action beivg taken on it. She suggested proceeding with adoption of the resolution. QUESTIOI; IVAS C~,LLED AND RES. 79-131 SVAS POSTPONED UETIL SEPTEMBER 18, BY A VOTE OF 82.5 "YES" TO 27 "NO". ~artin, Di~anick and Douglas voting negatively. (h) Res. 79-132 "Classi£ying Lands Foreclosed by the ~orOugh f6r Delinquen} Real Property Taxes and Authorizing a Land Sa.e of Tax Foreclosed Proper- ties" ASSE!4BLY~I~.IBBR MC CLOUD MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-132. Mr. Hille reported the Finance Co~unittee discussed the res- olution today and felt the disclaimer clause in Section 3. should be well publicized. The only thing the bog ih will be selling is the right to collect taxes, it will not be selling land. QUESTION WAS CALLED AND'RES. 79-132 ~AS UNA~DIOUSLY ADOPTED. H. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (a) Ord. 79-S6 "Providing for the Contract' Zoning ~ a Certdin Parcel of Real Property Lying ~ithin the Seward )lunicipal District" ASSEbiBLI~iENBER MC CLOUD MOVED TO SET ORDi/~ANCE 79'56 FOR HEARING OCTOBER 9, 1979. Mrs. Di~mick stated she has been told over the years that contract zoning is a poor way of resolving zoning problems and the method is illegal in other states. She requested the attorney to explain why this borough has come forward with two contract zonings. Attorney Sarisky stated the Alaska Statutes were amended about 2 years ago to provide a brief authorization for contract zoning, which in effect also is defined as trading o££ a higher uso in a classified zone area in exchange for certain promises by the contractee who is getting the benefit of tho different use. Insofar as other jurisdictions are concerned, he did not have information as to where it may have been declared illegal, tie personally felt contract zoning is probably the result of developers lobbying the concept through the legislatures and is just another way of either K£NAI PENIIqSULA BOROUGI! A$SE~.IBI.Y REGULAR MEETIIqG ~4INUT£S SI:.PTE~IBER 4~ 1979 PAGE 4 obt~ining.a waiver or a conditional use p~rmit. Contract zoning mu~t he looked at as another attempt at spot zoning. lie reported having di£ficulty with the concept of a contract because when a person gets the benefit of this use and expends money, whether or not his promises can be enforced will depend on tho fact that it is bis property and his use and is problematical. Mr. Cooper reported the City of Homer provides for contract zoning and one of the prime reasons is that most areas have a broad zoning code and the areas are going through rapid change, It is hard to define what the best zoning use for an area should be, In llomer there are problems because the commercial area covers a wide range of uses and the resi- dential zone is restrictive. There are some types of commercial uses which are appropriate in a residential area. Rather than try to find a particular spot that is zoned couercial and then open it up to any kind of co~ercial use, the contract zoning arrangement evolved to allow development of a specific type of commercial use in a speci£ic area. Mr. McCloud commented the ordinance addresses the problem of an individual who has a small craft shop on one side of the street which is classified residential, while on the other side o£ the street there are several businesses. He could not see anything wrong ~ith this type zoning. QUESTION ~IAS CALLBDAND ORD 79-56 $~AS SET FOR HEARING. OCTOBER 9~ 1979 BY A VOTE OF 91.5 "YES" TO 18 "NO". Di~mick and Martin voting negativbly. (b) Ord. 79-57 "Rezonin§ Lot 1~ Block 2, Porrest Gien'Subdivision~ City of Nomer from Residen- tial (R) to Comnercial (C) District" ASSE~LY~IE~ER COOPER MOVED.TO SET ORD 79-57 FOR HEARING OCTOBER 9, 1979 AIID ~ITtiOUT DISCUSSION TtiE VOTE IfAS UNANIMOUS. I, FORMAL PRESENTATIONS ~ITH PRIOR NOTICE (a) Mr, Truman Knutsen; Borough Lands - (see Item G (h) J. CO~ilTTEE REPORTS (a) School Board (A~barian) Mr. A~barian reported attending the school board m~eting ~n the Labor Day Holiday and re£erred the assembly to the "News in Brief" on the table tonight. He reported there has been a decrease o£ 253 students from the projected enrollment, ho~ever enrollments are expected to increase during September. (b) OEDP (no report) (c) Finance Coaunittee (reported earlier) (d) Solid ~aste (no report) (e) Roads i Trails (Long/Martin/Corr) ~r. Long requested Enginee~ Conyers to present a brief progress report on the roads being constructed. ~r. Conyers reported Greet Drive will be completed this week; If. Poppy Lane is 50% complete; Tote Road clearing is scheduled to hecta soon and the contract for Kingsley l,oop is in the process of execution. He reported the committee will meet with the Planntng Commission ..... I~ - Il ....... I imlll (f) Ports ~ l~rbors (no report) {g) Local Affairs (no report) K. ~YOR ~ S REPORT ~a) ~.~emo Re: Property Location Grid aad S~bering System in the Borough. {b) ~le~o 80-28, "PACe Public Land Steering Committee - ~evada Lands BiiL' ~e above are noted for the record, but were not discussed. L. SCIIOOL CONSTRUCTION REPORT (none) OTIIER BUSINESS (a) Cliff l, ioore; ~aiver of Time for Filing for Disability Exemption ASSEIIBLYSI~IBER HILLE ?.IOVED TO ItAIVE THE TI$1E FOR FILI:;G FOR lqR, MOORE. THE ,~IOTIO?~ I~AS U:{A:iIHOUSLY APPROVED, (b) Tax Adjustment Requests. ASSENBLY:-U~tBER COOPER .~.iOVED TO APPROVE TIlE T,~/ ADJUST!,IENT REQUESTS FOR REAL A,~D PERSO:;AL PROPERTY SUBblITTED BY TIlE ASSESSI.~G fiEPARTHENT AS S!lOl~; ON TIlE RECAP SHEET. TIlE ~IOTION RECEIVED UNAIIIMOUS APPROVAL. (c) Memo re Vehicle Purchases ASSF~BLYblF2.1BER DI,~IICK $tOVED TO APPROVE TIlE AfeARD TO IIUTCHINGS CHEVROLET FOR TIIE PURCHASE OF VEHICLES IN THE A~IOUNT OF $47,257.01. THE !.lOTION I~AS UNANI?.IOUSLY APPROVED. (d)biemo re Nikiski Fire Service Area VHF Portable Radio Bids. ASS'EIiBLYI-fEbIBER DH,~.IICK ,xiOVED TO APPROVE TIlE AfeARD TO ,~.IOTOROLA COblMUNICATIONS ~ID ELECTRONICS II~ TltE AblOUNT OF $21,394.66. THE bIOTION PASSED UIIANIIIOUSLY. N. ASSEbIBLY AND ~tAYOR' S (a) bit. Fischer suggested the Assembly consider sending someone to Reno to attend the NACu meeting on the Nevada Lands Bill. bits. Dimmick co,unented that it was her understanding that this meeting was to be attended by invitation only. O. PUBLIC CO.~IENTS (none) P. INFORblATIONAL MATERIALS AND REPORTS Pres. Elson noted the school board, plat committee, Nikiski Fire service area board minutes; memo from Attorney Sarisky re Nikiski Fire service area ag~'eement; land sale plan and recommendations from t~e Fianni. ng Commis~iun in ~hc packet, Q. NOTICE OF NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned following announcement of the next regular meeting to be held on September 18, 1979; 7:$0 p.m., Borough Administration Building (8:~0 p.m.) Date approved ATTEST: l~oro, oh C'I ~..rk Assembly pr'eSident B. C. E. F. FOR lllI. t;i:I:ULAR AS:;i.:.IBLY AUGff51' ZI, 't979; 7:50 ~lROUgi~ Ai;?I I X I STRAT I t};; BU I LD I NG I'. O. BOX 850 SOLDO'fXA, ALASKA 99669 -AGENDA- CALL TO ORDER AXD ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA%CE SFATDiG OF :;EM ASSEIIBLY,',IFJ, IBERS (none) AGENDA APPROVAL APPROVAL OF ,MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1979 ORDINA,~ICE IlEARII~GS, OR OTIIER PUBLIC IIEARINGS (~) {b) Orff. 79-44 Substitute "Authorizing Indebted- ness By the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds in an .~ount Not to Exceed $22,000,000 for the Purpose of Constructing, Improving and E~uipping: ~orth Kenai Junior lligh School, Nikolaevsk School Addition, ~inilchik School Addition-Scheme B, Ee~ Elementary School at tlomer, 'Four Classroo~ Addition at Ilorth Kenai, llomer High School Phase ii-Theater and Food Service Facility, Homer ~iddle School; Kenai Central High School Auditorium and Soldotna Jr. fligh Addition, and Pledging the Full Faith arid Credit of the Borough, ~ith Pa~ent of the Indebtedness to Be Derived from Taxes Levied ;ithin the Borough Subject to Approval By ~he Voters at the Regular Election on October 2, 1979, and Authorizing the Expenditure o£ $2,500,000 Onexpended Funds Approved by Ordinance 77-51" Ord. 79-46 "Providing for the Rezoning of Pa'r~s'I, II and Iii of ~oodland Subdivision, City of Kenai, from Rural Residential District to Suburban Residential District" (c) Ord. 79-47 "Authorizing Indebtedness By the Issuance of Bonds in an Amount Not to ~xceod $6~76~,646 for the Purpose of Expanding, Renovating, Improving, and Equipping the Central Peninsgla General Hospital Facili- ties~ and Pledging the Full Faith and Credit o£ the Central Peninsula Hospital Service Area for an Annual Levy o£ Taxes ~ithin the Central Peninsula Hospital Service Area, in an A~ount Su£ficient to Pay the Principal and Interest; Subject to Approval by the Voters in the Central Peninsula Hospital Service Area At the Borough Election on October 2, 1979~' (d) Ord. 79-S1 Substitute "Reapportioning the. .VerBs'Of the Ass'e~bly Based on the Special Federal Census o£ 1978" CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS ia) .Res. 79-115 "To Terminite Participation In the ~ederal Social Security System" P,a~e ,~o. Approved I Enacted Enacted 3 Enacted 4 Enacted Defeated [b) Res. 79-116 "Establishing Policy Regarding ~enefitS for all Permanent Employees of the Borough, and Rescinding Resolution 78-13 and Resolution 78-100" (c) Res. 79-117 "Providing Certain Employment Benefits ['~r Ad~inistrative Staff" (d) Res. 79-118 "Rescinding Resolution 78-53, Except 'for Department Heads and Certain Administrative Personnel, and Allocating Peruanent Positions of £mployment in the Various Departments and Assigning Salary R~nges to Each Position" (e) Res. 79-121 "Accepting the Low Bid of' P R t S, Inc. for the Construction of the Tote Loop Road Extension Project" P~£~ ~n. Adopted Adopted 6 Adopted 6Adopted (f) Res. 79-122 "Establishing Pay and Benefits ~Nikiski Fire Department Personnel"7 Postponed (g) Res. 79-125 "Concurring in'the Borough's Participation Xn the 1979-80 Fiscal Year Distribution of Funds from Alaska's Cigarette Tax Fund" 7 Adopted (h) Res. 791124 "Avardtng the Contract for the North'Ken~i' Elementary Relocatable Class- rooms Project to Cordova Construction, Inc." 7 Adopted H, I~TRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (a) Ord. 79-50 "Establishing a Borough-~ide Economic Development Council" Ord. 79-52 "Establishing the Position of Assistant to the Mayor for Civil Defense for the Fiscal Year 1979-80 and Appropri- ating Funds" (b) ~.c) (d) Ord. 79-53 "Providing for the Disposal of Certain Parcels of Borough Selected Lands By Lottery and By Negotiated Sale" Ord. 79-54 "Providing for the Rezoning of [Port'ion"~f Killen Estates, Addition ~o. 1 Subdivision, City of Kenai, from Rural Residential to Suburban Residential" 7 Set for Hear. ~ended & 7 Set for ltear. Amended & 7 Set for Hear. 9 Set for Hear. Ord~ 79-55 "Rezoning a Portion of the Beaver Creek AlaSka Subdivision, ~ity of Kenai, from Rural Residential to General Commercial" 10 Set for Hear. I. FOR31AL PRESENTATIONS '$~ITH PRIOR NOTICE (a) Persons speaking on land disposal J. COI~IiilTTEE REPORTS 10 (a) School Board (Fischer) (b) OEDP (Fischer/bioses) (c) Finance (liiIle/Cooper/Crawford/~cCloud/Corr/ Douglas) (d) Solid ~aste (Fischer/blartin~Cooper) (e) Roads and Trails (Long/tlartin/Corr) (f) Ports and llarbors (Arness/Campbell/Ambarian) (g) Local Affairs (Campbell/Ambarian/Dimmick/ Arness) AGESI1A FOR ~II%UTES O1; ;~.UC;U."iT 2I, 1979 page ~e. K. ~IAYOR'S REPORt ~emo 80-2S "Advisory Planning Comnsn; ~:oose ~ass" (b) ~leno $0-24 "Planning Connsn. Appointment" (c) Finance Report (tuesday) 10 Approved 11 Approved 11Ackno~Iedged L. SCHOOL COXSTRUCTIOX REPORT M. OTHER BUSINESS (a) Radio Broadciszing of }ieetings (b) Waiver of Tine for Filing for Disability (c) Tax Adjustnent Requests - PE~DI}iG LEGISLKTION - (d) Ord. 79-t6 'Anendin~ Section $.12.150 of the Borough Code Relating to the Exemption of ilousehold E~fects from the Personal Property Tax" (Reforred to Finance Con.) N. ASS~.~LY ~ ~IAYOR'S COI.~IENTS ~1 Defeated Reconsideratior 11 Denied 11 Postponed Amended 11 Enacted 11 (a] Br. tlille; bond issue (b) ~r. Fischer; request for Reconsideration (c) ~r. £a~pbe11; tennis court repaying (d] ~r. Arnoss; funding for roads (e) :fr. :.2rtin; land ~ale (f) }ir. Corr; KCHS 1rach O. PUBLIC COI~.IEI~I'S 11 (a) Mr. }lcGahan; Tennis court repaying - (b) . Mr. ilmmon; land sale, residency requirement (c) ~lrs. ~cgahan; repaying, broadcasting, procedure (d) tirs. Fischer; broadcast INFORMATIONAL NATERIALSAND REPORTS NOTICE OF NEXT ~ETING AND ADJOURI~NT 12 KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGII NINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR ASSEMBLY MEETING AUGUST 21, 1979; 7:30 BOROUGtl AD~IINISTRATION BUILDING SOLDOTNA, ALASKA A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Pres. JoAnn Elson called the regular assembly meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Assemblymembers Fischer, Hille, Long, Martin, Moses McGloud, Ambarian, Arness, Campbell, Cooper, Corr, Crawford, Dimmick, Douglas, Elson; Mayor Gilman, Atty. Sarisk¥, Admn.' Asst. Baxley, Finance Director Barton, Public Works Director Hakert; Assessor Thomas, Planning Director Waring, Dpty. Clerk Brindley ABSENT: Assemblymember Davis B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAIgCE C. SEATING OF NEW ASSE~LYMEbtSh~S (none AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor Gilman requested Res. 79-125 be withdrawn from the agenda. Thoro was no objection and so ordered. E. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Clerk noted a correction has been made to page 10 of the August 7 minutes where final vote on Ord. 79o51 was no/ed, the motion should read "The ordinance was set for hearing August 21" instead of "September 4". With no other corrections the minutes were declared approved. P. ORDINANCE HEARINGS, OR OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Ord. 79-44 Substitute "Authorizing Indebtedness By the I~suance of General Obligation Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $22,000,000 for the Purpose of Con~tructing, Improving and Equipping: North Xenai Junior High School, Nikolaevsk School Addition, Ninilchik School Addition-Scheme B. New Elementary School at Homer, Four Classroom Addition at North Kenai, Homer High School Phase II-Theater and Food Service Facility, Homer Middle School, Kenai Central High School Auditorium and Soldotna Jr. High Addition, and Pledging the Full Faith and Credit of the Borough, with Payment of the Indebtedness to be Derived £rom Taxes Levied ~ithin thc Borough Subject to Approval By the Voters at the Regular Election on October 2, 1979, and Authorizing the Expenditure o£ $2,500,000 Unexpended Funds Approved by Ordinance 77-51" The ordinance was read by title only as copies were available for the public. ?ublic hearing was opened. Mrs. Karen lIcGahan, Nikiski, urged enactment of tho ordinance without deletion of North Kenai Jun. ior lligh, stating the enroll- ment ~ould be the same as when Soldotna Junior tligh ~as built. She reported some of the children must travel 30 miles each way, although thc majority travel 18 miles to Kenai. The time - I - KI!N,'tl PENINSULA BOROIIG!! ,~.c, SI31BIoY Rli6UI,.I.R 511!l;l'l:;G ,',IINU'rES AIIilIIST 2l 1979 PAC. I-'. ~. spent on the bus and the distance for anyone pickiug them up, prohibits an)' participation in extracurricular activities t'hich she believes are an esse~tia! part of school life. She felt other projects in the bond issue could be eliminated, but not North Kenai Jr. lligh. As no one else indicated a desire to speak, public hearing was closed. ASSEMBLYNE.~IBER DI,~.IlCK ~.IOVED FOR ENACT~IENT OF ORD. 79-44 Sub. )ir. Corr stated apparently the North Kenai Jr. tligh School is very important to a lot of people and since construction is slow on the peninsula, this might be an economical time to build ~hile providing needed jobs. ASSEMBLYME3IBER COOPER .xlOVED TO Al. lEND TIIE ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO TIlE FOLLOI'II.~G AS AGREED UPON BY TIlE FINA.'ICE CO.qMITTEE: IN TIlE TITLE CIIANGE THE AI, IOUNT TO $8,493,000 AND DELETE "NORTH KENAI JUNIOR HIGtl SCIIOOL", DELETE AFTER i~ItIILCtlIK "ADDITION-.SCIIEFIE B" AND SUBSTITUTE Tile I~'ORD "I,'.IPROVE,'.IENTS", DELETE "FOUR CLASSROOM ADDITION AT NORTll KEI~AI", IIELETE "HOldER HIGtl SCHOOL PHASE II-TIIEATER AND FOOD SERVICE FACILITY", DELETE "tlOMER MIDDLE SCtlOOL", DELETE "AND SOLDOTNA JR. HIGH ADDITION". STRIKE TIlE CLAUSE BEGINNING Ii'ITIt TIlE IVORD "AND" THROUGH "ORDINANCE 77-51," AND CIIANGE TIlE CO,~l,~ TO A PERIOD AFTER "1979". IN THE SECOND "{I'IIEREAS" CLAUSE, STRIKE "North Kenai Elementary, Homer Middle, Homer lligh and Soldotna Jr. High" STRIKE Tile THIRD "~;HEREAS" CLAUSE. IN SECTION 1 STRIKE THE FIGURE "$22,000,000,000"AI~D SUBSTITUTE. TilE FIGURE "$8,495,000", STRIKE "North Kehai Junior lligh School in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000;" STRIKE AFTER NINILCIIIK SCHOOL "Addition- Scheme B, in the amount of $1,970,000" AND SUBSTITUTE "improve- ments in the amount of $'350,000;" STRIKE "Four Classroom Addition at North Kenai in the amount of $939,000;" STRIKE "Homer High School Phase II-Theater in the amount of $2,466,000; and Food Service Facility, in the amount of $2,348,000;" STRIKE "Homer ~ltddle School, in the amount of $1,290,000;" STRIKE "6oldotna Junior High Addition, in the amount of $695,000" STRIKE SECTION 2 IN ITS EIiTIRETY. IN SECTION 4, IN Tile PRO- POSITION, CftANGE "$22,000,000" TO "$8~493,000" ArID STRIKE THE CO)~-iA AND THE CLAUSE, "together with $2,500,000 in unexpended funds authorized by Ordinance 77-$1," THEN STRIKE "North Kenai Junior High School in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000;" AFTER NINILCHI]~ SCHOOL STRIKE "Addition-Scheme B, in the amount of $1,970,000" AND SUBSTITUTE "improvements in the amount o£ $350,000"; STRIKE "Four Classroom Addition at North Kenai in the amount of $959,000;" STRIKE "ltO,~IER ItlGH SUIIOOL PHASE II-Theater in the amount of $2,466,000; and Food Service Facility, in the amount of $2,348,000;" STRIKE "llomer Hiddl~. School, in the amount of $1,290,000;" AND STRIKE "Soldotna Junior High Addition, in the amount of $693,000,". Mr. Cooper stated this will leave the projects the school board has requested and it is their responsibility to choose what is needed, It is not the assembly's place to add projects that could jeopardize' the entire issue. Mr. Martin recalled the school district felt only a month ago that a11. the projects except the North Kenai Junior ltigh were aeeded according to enrollment projections and then they Were withdrawn· Since the buildings belong to the borough it seems the assembly should have the prerogative to select .projeces. M~. Hill~ read a letter Supt. Pomeroy received from Commissioner of Education, ~larshal! Lind which'states, "The Department of 'Education would not grant approval of plans not having prioY approval of the school board. A request for stgte aid under AS 43.18.100 would not be approved for school construction projects not having prior approval of the school district." Assemblytaembers ~lcCloud and Fischer recalled the school board approved the schematics before they were brought to the assembly. Mr. Corr spoke against the amendment believing the more schools . that are on the issue the more voters would vote for it, parti- cularly in Ninilchik and North Kenai. Nr. Cooper pointed out a difference in school board approval of schematics and making a formal request for approval from the state; the plan may be to request some of the schools next year or later on. The assembly should not try to do the school board's work. Mrs. Douglas spoke for Phase II of Ninilchik*s project without which they might get only a paint job. She also £elt the $2 1/2 million left from the last bond issue needed to be considered. FOLLO~ING ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE AMENDMENT FAILED BY A VOTE OF 35.33 "YES" TO 99.67 Mille, Cooper, Cra~£ord and Elson voting affirmatively. ASSEHBLY)IE~IBER.~ARIAN ~iOVED TO YOfEND BY INSERTING A NEW SECTION 4 TO READ: "All projects shall have prior school board and state approval before construction unless schools are built for cash from existing unexpended bond funds which would require school board approval only.' AND RENU~IBER FOLLOWING SECTIONS TO COINCIDE. AFTER DISCUSSiON~ THIS AMENDNENT ~AS ~ITHDP, At~. VOTE WAS CALLED ON ENACTmeNT AND THE ~OTION PASSED~ 103.67 "Yes" to 31.33 "NO"; ltille, Cooper and Elson voting negatively. (b) Ord. 79-46 "Providing for the Rezoning of Parts I~ II and III of Woodland Subdivision, City of Kenai~ from Rural Residential District to Suburban Residential District" The ordinance was read by title only as copies were available for the public. Public hearing was o~ened and ~hen no-one wished to speak, vas closed. ASSEMBLY~IE~iBER~IBARIAN MOVED FOR ENACT~IENTAND THE ~IOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY ROLL .CALL VOTE. (c) Ord. 79-47 "Authorizing Indebtedness By the Issuance of Bonds in an Amount Not to Exceed $6,762,646 for the Purpose of Expanding, Renovating, Improving, and Equippini the Central Peninsula General Hospital Facilities, and Pledging the Full Faith and Credit of the Central Peninsula Hospital Service Area for an Annual Levy of Taxes $iithil~ the Central Peninsula Hospital Service Area, in an Amount Sufficient ~o Pay the Principal and Interest; Subject to Approval. by tile Voters ~n the Central Peninsula [lospital Service Area at the Borough Election on October 2, 1979" The ordinance was read by title only a~ copies were available for tho public. Public hearing wa~ opened. AUGUST 21, .I~979 · PA(;~ 4 Dr. Peter Cannava spoke in favor of the addition stating the need has been es£ablished to accommodate the current population, it is not a projected estimate. Ile reported the hospital has been losing patients to Anchorage facilities because of its limited space and improved ~erking conditions would serve to attract specialists to the area lchich are needed at this time. ~tr. Dave Bonald of the Soldotna Fire Dept. stated the squad has observed a marked increase in the insufficiency of emergency facilities and the number being transported to Anchorage for treatment has also increased. As no one else wished to speak, public hearing was closed. ASSE~IBLY~IE~IBER DIe,lICK ~IOVED FOR ENACTMENT OF ORD. 79-47. ~lr. Hille reported tho Finance Committee has discussed the bond issue thoroughly ~nd unanimously recommended passage of the ordinance. He stated grant funds ~ight be available, but felt the whole amount should be approved by the voters and then bonds could be issued as required. Bit. Hartin noted Section 4 a11o~s any excess funds after the project is completed to be spent by the board with assembly approval. Hr. Barton stated the bonds do not have to be sold; if the bonds have already been sold ~hen grant funds arrive, any excess dollars must go into repayment of the bonds. ASSEI. fBLY~IENBER ~RTIN IlOVED TO DELETE SECTION 4, RENU~IBERING FOLLOWING SECTIONS IN SEQUENCE. In response to questions from the assembly~ hospital administra- tor Simon Hancock displayed plans for the addition explaining how further expansion could be made to the rear of the building. He reported th~ proposed addition ~ill double the physical therapy space and possibly in the future an addition will provide £or long term care beds. ~OTE I~AS CALLED AND THE ~NE~D~IENT PASSED BY A VOTE OF 126 "YES" TO ~ "NO"; Arness voting negatively. ORD. 79-47 ~AS ENACTED BY THE SAdiE 12~ "YES" TO 9 "NO" VOTE. (d) Ord. 79-51 "Reapportioning the Votes of the Assembly Based on the Special Federal Census of 1~?$" ~ith ~rd. 79-51 Substitute The ordinance was read by title only as copies were available £or the public. Public hearing ~as opened. Hrs. Karen ~IcGahan of Nikiski, speaking for Ord. 79-S1 Substitute reported she had assumed the change in voting balance ~ould be automatic with the census. She did not favor the require- ment in Section $ of a majority approval of the voters inside and outside cities and felt districting would cause confusion of voters living near the borders. Public Hearing was closed. ASSElVIBLY~IE~ER ARNESS ~iOVED FOR ENACTI~fENT OF ORD. 79-51 AS AI~IENDED IN ORD. Z9-$1 SUBSTITUTE. ~r. Campbell objected to tho fact that the product of many hours of ~ork by the Local Affairs Con~nittee as well as a 'contracted attorney was not even set for h~aring or amendment~ due to the small majority present ~hen it ~as introduced. He urged de£eat -4- iIENAI PEN I~{SULA BOROUGH ASSI"-.~fBL¥ REGULAR I~iEETING IqIh'IITES A~GU.ST ~-i, 1979 PAGE of Ord. 79-51 noting there.vas still time for a better solution to be workbd out before the deadline.set by the state. The committee epdeavored to set up a mechanism which would alleviate the problems of repeatedly adjusting to a new census. ASSE~BLDI~.iBER CORR MOVED TO ~IERD Tile SUBSTII~TE ORD. 79-51 IN SECTION 2 BY SUBTRACTING .14 VOTES FRO~4 EACH OUTSIDE ~IF3~ER AND .06 FRO~i EACH SEIfAP, D REPRESENTATIVE TO BE ADDED TO SELDOVIA RESULTING IN SOI, IE EVEN VOTES AND KEEPING ~ITitlN THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF REPRESENTATION. HOTION FAILED, 18 "YES" TO 117 "NO"; Long ~nd Corr voting affirmatively. Mrs. Di~ick stated she still believed districtihg a better lan.but since a majority of the assembly does not agree with er, at least until the next census this plan should be approved for placement on the ballot. Mr. Cooper spoke against the ordinance as it does not follo~ the advice of the co~unittee or the expert attorney paid to research the question. ~e felt it only delays proper apportionment and -does not satisfy legal requirements. Mr. A~barian co~nented only with districting would close associa- tion of representatives to constituents be guaranteed. '~ith most out~ide representatives living ~ithin 10 ~inutes of the borough building, much of the borough is left without the oppor- tunity for such a,~ association. VOTE IgAS CALLED AND ORD. 79-51 SUB. $~AS ENACTED BY A VOTE OF 73.66 "YES" TO 61.34 "NO"; ~oses, McCloud, A~barian, Campbell, Cooper, Cra~ford and Elson voting negatively. g. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS (a) Res. 79-11S "To Terminate Participation in the Federal Social Security System" ASSF3~LI~II~ERA~ARIAN~OVE9 TO A~OPT RES. 79-115. Assembl)~embers ~cCloud, Arness and ~artin co~nented it seemed unfair for government employees to be able to opt out when everyone else has no choice in the matter, Mayor Gilman responded to a question by reporting the employees in negotiation of the ne~ contract requested the borough be given the opportunity to withdraw from the system. If the Resolution is approved the borough would, still hav~ two years in which to change its position. }le noted also abe employees have no benefit coverage that deals with disability, which Social Security does and that all of the ramifications ~ight not ~e ~no~n at this time. Mr. Ambarian noted the ~ithdrawaI ~ould result in a 6~ savings for th~ borough on ~hat it pa~s for employee benefits. THE RESOLUTION FAI~ED ADOPTIO~ BY AVO. TE OF $5 "YES" TO 80 "NO"; Fischer, Hille, Ambarian, Cooper, Cra~ford, £1son voting nega- tively. (b) Res. 79-116 "Establishing Policy Reg~rdin§ ~bnefi'ts for All Permanel~t Employees of Borough, apd Rescinding Resolution 75-13 and Resolution 78-100" ASS~IBL¥~E~BER COOPER HOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-115. - S- AU{;U,ST 21, 1979 PAGE 6 Mr. llille reported the Finance Committee unanimously recommended the assembly pass this hou:;cke~ping measure to match the nego- tiated agreement. TIlE RESOLUTION NAS ADOPTED BY A UNANINOBS VOTE. (c) Res. 79-117 "Providing Certain Employment genefits for Administrative Staff" ASSE~IBLYNENBER ItILLE ?.IOVED FOR ADOPTIOIi OF RES. 79-117 ~ITIiOUT DISCUSSION IT NAS ADOPTED BY UNA~INOUS VOTE. o (d) Res. 79-118 "Rescinding Resolution 78-S3, Except for Department lleads and Certain Administrative Personnel, and Allocating Permanent Positions of Employment in the Various Departments and Assigning Salary Ranges to Each Position" ASSE)fBLYN~IBER DIbgiICK ~iOVED 'TO ADOPT RES. 79-118. ASSENBLYbfENBER DI~.fICK HOVED TO AMEND PAGE 2, UNDER "PLANNING DEPT." CHANGE NU~IBER OF SENIOR PLANNERS TO 1 INSTEAD OF 2 AS A POSITION IS VACANT AT THIS TIME. lit. Cooper urged defeat o~ the amendment and retention of the resolution as a housekeeping measure, not a v6hicle ~ith ~hich to change designated positions. Mrs. Douglas referred to Page $ "Nikiski P~re Dept. Executive Secretary" at range 12 and questioned the designation and salary~ recalling a different title and range were used at budget approval. ~fr. Hille reported the only change this resolution made Iron the budget was this position ~hich was raised from "Clerk/Vispatcher, Range 9". VOTE ~AS CALLED ON DIPSTICK'S AMENDMENT ~IIC}t FAILED BY A VOTE OF 56 "YES" TO 79 "NO"; Fischer, Martin, ~ioses, Arness, Di~aick · and Douglas voting in the ~ffirmative. ASSL~iBLYME~ER DOUGLAS ~IOVED TO A~IEND TO CHANGE TITLE AND RANGE OF THE NIKISKI FIRE DEPT. SECRETARY TO "CLERK/DISPATCHER, RANGE 9. Mrs. Douglas requested the fire service area board to come back with justification and budget planning at a later time, VOTE IiAS CALLED AND TIlE MOTION TO ~,IEND AND THE NOTION TO ADOPT ~ERE UNANI~0USLY APPROVED. (e) Res. 79-121 "Accepting the Lo~ Bid oEP R ~ S, Ync. for the Construction o£ the Tote Loop Road Extension Project" ASSErNBLYbIL~ER LONG NOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-121. ~r. Arness questioned tho wide range between bids. ~r. Conyers reported a difference in equipment used accounted for most o£ the variance, along with bidders using different approaches. He ~xplaindd the contingency was provided on road jobs because'even with test holes and an en~ineer~s best estimations, there are many unknown conditions which can influence cost o£ the project. RES. 79-121 SfAS ADOPTED BY A VO~E OF 117 "YES" TO 18 ~rttn ahd Douglas voting negatively. -6- I II I~]1 KENA! PENI.';SHI, A BOROUGH ASSE.~IBLY REGULAR I~tEETING }.IINUTI-:S A~UGUST _21, !979 PAGE 7 (f) P. es. 79-122 "Establishing Pay and Benefits for On-Cali l~ikiski Fire Department Personnel" ASSEbtBL~-IE~IBER IilLLE REPORTED TIlE FINANCE CON~,IITTEE FOUND SO)4E PROBLE,'.!S I'/ITH THE RESOLUTIOI~ A.'~D TIIEREFORE b!OVED TO POSTPONE UNTIL FURTHER REPORT FRO,~.! AD,'IiI~ISTRATION AiD SO ORDERED. (g) Res. 79-123 "Concurring in the Borough's Partici~'ati'on in the 1979-80 Fiscal Year Distribution of Funds from Alaska's Cigarette Tax Fund" ASSE~LY~IE~IBER COOPER 14OVED FOR ADOPTION A~D III'THOUT DISCUSSION IT SfAS UNANINOUSLY ADOPTED. (h) Res. 79-124 "Awarding the Contract for the NOrth Kenai Elementary Relocitable Classrocms Project to Cordova Construction, Inc." ASSEI. fl~LYI. IF2.~ER DOUGLAS bIOVED FOR ADOPTION OF RES. 79-124. biT. Fischer reported school board approval of the project. VOTE gAS CALLED AND RES. 79-124 ADOPTED BY UNANI:.iOUS VOTE. H, INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES (a) Ord. 79-50 "Establishing a Borough-liide Economic Development Council" ASSF24BLYNE~U~ER 140SES bfOVED TO SET ORD. 79-S0 FOR HEARING ON SI~PTF2.iBER 18, 1979 AND THE NOTION lVAS APPROVEU BY UNANIIIOUS VOTE. (b) Ord. 79o$2 "Establishing the Position of ASsistant to the lfayor for Civil Defense for the Fiscal Year 1979-80 and Appropria- ting Funds" ASSF2~BLY~.IE~U~ER DI~i.'.IICK ~.IOVED TO SET ORD. 79-52 FOR HEARING ON SEPTF~U~ER 18 ~ 1979 · ASSE~FBLY~fENBER HILLE biOVED TO A~IEND SECTION 2 TO READ THE SUN OF $33~627 AT REQUEST OF ADIilNISTRATION. In response to a question from }.irs.' Douglas, blayor Gilman read £rom the budget message ~hich reported civil defense had under- gone a change on federal and state levels and it-seemed appropri- ate to deemphasize to the point of combining it ~ith personnel. Since then, there has been considerable realigning and rede£in- in§ of the process and as S0% matching funds are available, he recommended having Civil Defense continue as. it has in the past. THE /~IENDNENT AND ADOPTION ifAS APPROVED BY UI~IbIOUS VOTE. (c) Ord. 79-53 "Providing for the Disposal of Certalh '~'h'rcels of Borough Selected Lands by Lottery and Ilegotiated Sale' ASSENBL¥)IEll~ER ARNESS )iOVED TO SET HEARING ON SEPTE,~IBER 18, 1979. Pres. Elson stated if persons ~ho had prior notike to speak on the land issu~ wished to address the a~:c~bly before action on the ordinance, it would be allowed at this time. - 7 - i --i AU6UST 21. 1979 I'^¢;E 8 Mr. Fischer called for point 4f order hollering a change in the agenda necessary first, t'res. Elson stated one of the purposes of the new a£oada ordinance was to allow people to speak before action on resolutions or intro,lu~tion of ordinances. i~ile a copy of the ordinance ~as being obtained to verify this fact, a challenge of the chair was made by Mr. Fischer. On voice vote all but Fischer voted to uphold the Chair. ~hen Ord. 79-15 was read, it was found to clearly provide as Pres, Elson had stated and Atty. Sarisky verified her action. ~r. Bob Jacobs, ~nchorage, urged support of the ordinance speaking in favor of lottery as a procedure which would not inflate land prices, tlc believed negotiation to adjoining property owners should solve some long existing problems. He reported having obtained 5 acres in 1950 by lease and having tried to gain ownership through the years since, lie recommended lots 11! through 114 be withdrawn from the sale in order to solve some long existing problems of local residents. llr. Gary Hinkle, Soldotna, appreciated the opportunity to speak before action on the ordinance; lie favored the lottery method in many icays, but questioned the amount to be disposed of at one time. He felt negotiated sales of a few parcels would not be a problem to realtors while i~ would help others. lit. Bob Schnidt,'Kalifonsky, urged positive action on the ordinance and consideration of those who had made a long effort to gain title to land the}' have lived on for many years, since 1950 in his case. He reported beach set net fishing could be hampered by sale of land to persons who did not understand that fishermen using the beaches adjoining the bluff property may overlap property lines in order to fish those sites adequately. Hr. Scott Hammon noted the bluff along the beach is soft and ~ith children playing ~n it, would sluff off much faster than otherwise. He felt the borough should work out problems of easements and access before any land is sold. ~r. german McGahan, North Kenai, stated he ~ould favor the sale by lottery but no governmenfal body should be involved in nego- tiated s~les. ASS~L~.~E~ERARNESS ~OVED TO DELETE "BY LOTTERY" IN THE ORDINANCE TITLE AND SECTION i(C) AND ALL OF SECTION 6. ~ir. Arness stated the property belongs to all the people of the borough and the assembly owes it to the constituents to get the best price possible. ~lrs. Dimnick reported the Planning Co~unission has not given its approval as yet and questioned whether a real identification of wetlands has been made, Additionally~ she was concerned about public access to the beaches. Assemblymembers Martin and Corr favored the lottery portion of the ordinance as a person would not have to have a lot of money to get a piece of land ~Lth that method. Mr. Campbvll voiced concern over the appraised value set on the parcels in the sale and ~hether, after financing the land, any- thing you,d ~e left to improve.it. ASSEHBLYMEIiER DISh'lICK ~IOVED'TO TABLE ORD. 79-55 AND TIIE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 48.67 "YES" TO 86.33 "NO"; Martin~ ~oses~ ~inick, ~ouglas and Elson voting, in the affirnattve. .$- £E:;AI FE:;I:;$ULA ~.,~,~,,, ...... r~.,,,.¥ P. ECUL!.'. :!!:;UTES AUGUST '21 t 1979 PAGE VO~E I~AS'CALLED O,~I THE ~d.~E.%~,~IEt~'r ~'~liICH FAILED BY A VOTE OF 27 "YES" TO 108 "ILO"; Arness~ Di~ick and Douglas voting affirm- atively. ~S~LY~.IE~IBER DI~.g.ilCK ~.IOVED TO ~END TO DELVE ~E FOURTll "~lE~" ~D ~Y USE OF THE I~'O~S "by negotiated sale' THROUGH- ~T ~ O~I~CE. Nfs. Dt~ick reported concern vith the size of so~e parcels identified to be sold through negotiation because of existing clat~. She felt this vould be viewed as special favors no ~atter ho~ ~ell justified it night be. In response to [,ir. lloses~ question~ )layor Gilman reported the Borough advertised that the process of land disposal had begun a~ that persons ~ith land or access, problems should identify the~ vith the Pla~ing Dept. The ordinance classifies public la~ for sale; also identifying some land to be retained because o~ hazardous conditions or vetlands~ and also reco~ending a classification of land to be taken {rom the sale but disposed o~ tn another ray. Nfs. Douglas asked that the problem of public access to the beaches be addressed by the Planning Co~ission. · VOTE O~ THE Dllg4ICK M.~I~ FAILED BY A VOTE OF ~5.67 "YES" TO 79.33 "NO"; Fischer, I~rtin, Corr, Di~ick, Douglas and Elson voting affirmatively. Nr. Corr asked vhat percentage of the borough land ~as to be sold a~g Nayor Gil~a~ replied there were approximately 2~500 2,700 acres or less than 21 of the borough~s total entitlement on the sale. ~S~L~ER FISC~R ~iO~D TO ~.~ PAGE 4, SECTION ~, SUB SE~ION 3 TO ~D "and at least a 30 day resident of thc borough" ~R ~nited States". In reply to a question as to legality, Atty. Sariskx stated that such a requirement has been held to be against freedom of · ent bet~en th~ states and therefore residency requirements are looked upon as a violation o{ the federal constitption. VOTE ~AS C~LED ~ THE ~DI~T FAILED BY A VOTE OF 70.~7 "YES" TO ~4.33 "~O"; Hille, Long, ~ar{in, }.ioses/ Cooper~ Cra~ford and ~lson voting negatively. ~S~L~I~ER FISCHER ~4OVED TO ~iEN9 TO DELETE "Spouses residing together may not file applications for tvo separate land sale units." ~E ~IEN~IE~T PASSED BY A VO~E OF ~1~.~ "YES" TO 19.57 "NO"; Arness and Elson voting negatively. ~SEI,~L~I~IBER FISCIIER ~IOVED TO ~IEND ~E ELIGIBLE AGE FRO~i TO 18 AND TIlE ~IOTIOI{ PASSED BY A VOTE OF 112 "YES" TO 23 Campbe11~ Cooper and Cra~ford voting negatively. VOTE ON SE~ING ~E O~IN~CE FOR HEARIRG tf~ APPROVED 88.33 "YES" TO 45.~7 "NO"; }lartin, Arness, Di~fick, Douglas and Elson voting negatively. (d) Ord. 79-54 "Providing for the Resoling of a Portion of Killen Estates~ Addition No. 1 Subdivision~ Cit~ of Kenai, from Rural ResidentiM to Suburba~ Residential" -9- I &SSEFiBL¥~I~.IBEg ~.Ii~AKIA:; ::OVI~D ~O Slit ORD, 79-54 FOR IIEARIXG 0~; SEPTE~IBER 18, 1979 A:;P i/ITIIOUT DISCUSSION TIlE FIOTIOi~ KAS UNANI~IOIJSI. Y .~PPR~¥ED. (e) Ord. 79-55 "Rezening a Portion of the Beaver ~i-fi-~ka Subdivision, City of £enai, from Rural Residential to general Commercial" ASSE~IBL¥~IE~BER ,~IBARI;~g "..eel'-ED TO SET ORD. 79-55 FOR IiEARIN6 O~ SEPTE~I~ER 18, 1979 ASD ~ITHOUT DISCUSSION 2'ItE U~AI; DIOUSLY APPROVED. I. FO~L PRESEXTATIOXS ~ITH PRIOR ~OTIC£ (a} Persons speaking on the land disposal ordinance ~rs. Ellen Shettlesworth, who was not able to attend this ~eeting, submitted a letter to be read into the record and copies were provided for assemblynenbers at the meeting. In it ~lrs. Shettles~orth reports on efforts the family has made to obtain the parcel.adjoining the beach site acquired on Kalifonsky teach Rca~ in 1961, ia order to gain legal access to the site. She stated it ~ppears tha~ the original surveys ~ere inaccurate and that the septic system, beach access road, smokehouse, and other various appurtenances are actually sitting on part of ~nit III of the proposed land sale. She felt after all the years of problems and taxes paid, that the borough should settle the access problem· She commented she expects'to pay a fair price, J. CO~DIITTEE REPORTS (a) School Board (Fischer) Nr. Fischer reported the board ratified the a§reenent ~ith the classified employees and approved the relocatable classrooms for the ~orth [enai Elementary School at the meeting of August 20, 1979. (b) OEDP (no report) (c) Finance (reported earlier) (d) Solid ~aste (met August 21) ~r. Fischer reported APUC has approved a rate increase of lZOt for Alpine Refuse and 805 for Burton Carver Co. which ~ill cause a probable shortage in the budget; the decision is being appealed. He also announced the Seldo~ia Landfill opened this aeek. (e) Roads and Trails (no report) (f) Ports and Harbors )fr. Arness reported ~ooduardoClyde representativos ~ould bo ~aking a report to tho,assembly on September 18~ 1979. (g) Local tffairs (no report) K. ~YO~fS P~PORT (a) biemo 80-25 "Advisory Planning Commission, Moose Pass" ASSEI4BLYII~.IBER COOPER glOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINT~IEIIT OF ED ESTES, CLIFF ~Ug[IIS, SULIEKA.gE~ RICHARD AND BEAUDOIN TO TH~ ~OOSgPASS ADVISORY PLAh2;I~G CO~g. II$SION AND Tile NOTION ' t/AS UNAt~IMOUSLY APPROVED. o IO o KENAI PEN,IRSUL^ BOROUGll ASSE,~{BLY REGULAR ,~IEETING IqlNUTES AUCUST 21~ 197~ PAGE. II (b). Nemo 80-24 "Planning Commission Appointment, Nick Gangl" · ASSE}~LYI. iF~IBER DII~IICK NOVED TO APPROVE Tile ,~b~YOR'S APPOIN{,~IENT OF NICK G/CiGL TO TIlE PLAN,~ING COI.~.IISSION ~D IT i';A5 APPROVED BY UNANII. IOUS CO~SENT. (c) Finance Report for July, 1979 ASSEI~tBLY~iE~IBER }lILLE HOVED TO ACKNOI~'LEDGE RECEIPT OF TIlE FINANCE REPORT FOR JULY AND IT I~'AS APPROVED BY UNANIHOUS CONSENT. L. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION REPORT The ~onthly P~iA report ~as noted. I~L OTHER BUSINESS (a) Radio Broadcasting of fleet}rigs ASSF3IBLYI~IEI~IBER FISCHER I. fOVED TIlE ASSEI~{BLY BEGIN BROADCASTING ITS ~ETINGS AGAIN ON KqOK AND KXRA AND APPROPRIATE $10,000 TO COVER COSTS. bits. Dim~ick reported she had not heard any comments regarding not hearing the broadcast since it has been o£~ th~ air and believed if the meetings are broadcast, they should be either by public service of the station or be sponsored as other programs are, Mr, Corr reported he had heard co~unents concerning not hearing the broadcast. Mr. Cooper believed if the rest of the borough has the service, meetings should be broadcast by the Homer radio station also. ASSL~LY~IEllBER MARTIN ~IOVED TO A~XIE,~D TO REFER THE SUBJECT OF BROADCASTING TO ADblINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH HO~,IER, SESfARD AND TIlE LOCAL.RADIO STATION AND CO,XfE BACK h'ITil A PRICE FACTOR AND RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS. TIlE MOTION FAILED BY A VOTE OF 47 "YES" TO 88 "~IO'; Fischer, Long, 'blartin, bloses and Corr voting in the affirmative. VOTE ON THE bLaIN ~IOTION NAS CALLED AND IT FAll.ED BY A VOTE OF ~6 "YES" TO 79 "NO"; Fischer, Long, bIoses~ Arness., Corr, and Douglas voting affirmatively. · (b) llatver of Time for Filing £oi Disability Exemption ASSE~/BLYbiFI~BER COOPER ~IOVED TO GR/h'~T A $~AIVER OF TItlE FOR FILING AND IT FAILED BY A VOTE OF 34.5 "YES" TO 100.5 "NO"; blartin, McCloud, Corr and Douglas voting affirmatively. (c) Tax Adjustment Requests (posiponed)' - PENDING LEGISLATION - (d) Ord. 79-36 "Amending Section 5.12.130 o£ the ]~0rough" 'Code Relating to the Exemption of ltouse- hold Effects from the Personal Property Tax" (referred to Finance Co,un}tree) ASSEbIBLYIqEIqBER CORR blOVED TO ENACT ORD. 79-3,6. ASSENIILY)IE,',IBER H I LLE lqOVED T~) A,',IEND SECT I ON 5.12.130 TO READ: - ll - o~ KENAI I'I;NIN!;IILA BOi[0tlGll ASSI.:.tBI.Y RI:GUI.AR ?ii:! 'i'lTiG HI~;UTES "... llousehold furniture and ~ffects ~h:!!! include household appliances, garden tractors, ~aYden supplies and accessories, noncom~ercia! garage equip~sxento home workshop machinery, and any recreational X'ehicles not requirin_~, regi.ptrati, on or licensing." AS R~.'t.~.~I-~:.'~;}t~D BY 1'lIE FI,~;-~,.~' COM~IITI'EE A~D IT ~S APPI[OYEB BY UNA:gIFIOUS VOTE. ORD. 79-36 I~AS ENACTED AS ,M~IENDED BY UNANI3IOUS VOTE. N. ASSEIlBLY ~M~B MAYOR'S (a) Mr. Hille felt the assembly had made a gross error in not going along ~ith the school board's req,,est for the bond issue. (b) Mr. Fischer requested Reconsideration of broadcasting at the next meeting, in ResOlution form. (c) Hr..Campbell reported 3 years ago tennis courts ~ere built at the Seward EIbmentary school and have been untenable all of this time; they need repaying. Since there is now a paving crew' in town he had been able to get a tentative agree- ment to pave the courts for approximately $15,000 which is available in the portable classroom surplus account. ASSEMBLY~..IE~fBER C,~.IPBELL ~IOVED TO PAVE THE TENNIS COURTS AT SEIqARD ELEMENTAR~ SCItOOL FOR APPROXIMATELY $15,000 FROM THE 03-10250-9500 ACCOUNT. ~TION ~;AS APPROVED BY.A VOTE OF ~6.~3 "YES" TO 38.67 "NO"; Long, Cooper, Crawford and Elson voting negatively. (d) Mr. Amens cemented on the cities r~qaestiag million worth of projects from state funds recently made available and suggested the Mayor apply for a matching amount for roads outside the cities. (e} Mr. Martin requested additional consideration be given to access problems and other aspects of the land sale before final action on the ordinance. (f) Mr. Cory spoke appreciatively of the new rubber track at KCHS.' O. PUBLIC (a) Mr. Norman McGahan objected to the transfer of funds from portable classrooms to tennis courts on an emergency basis. (b) Hr. Scott lt~n referred to the residency requirement as applies to the land sale stating the constitution contains a residency requirement for elected officials and therefore should be legal in this instance as well. (c) Mrs. Karen McGahan objected to the tennis court repaying being approved without going to bid. She spoke in favor of the radio broadcasting of meetings. She questioned the policy of allowing cements from. the public on items which may be amended before ~endments are made. (d) Mrs. Joyce Fischer spoke in favor o[ the broadcasts, reporting c6~ents have been made to'the effect that school ~oard meetings should be' b{oad'cast as well. · ' P. INFO~TIO~L I,~TERIAL$ ~D ~PORTS. - 1~ - !1 · ,[] ~rbs. Ellen ~oted r~ceipt og the school district finance report, ~] correspondence from local brokers *regarding the land sale and Il ,he ~ report On school .constructioni .--'. ~ q. ~OTICE OF NEXT ~I,G ~ ~JOU~,~,ENT The meeting ~as adjourned following announcement of the next meeting to be held on September 4, 1979 at 7:$0 p.m. (11:30 p.m.) ATTEST: l~'puty BorOugh Clerk /r Date approved ~ptember 4, 1979 ~sse~biy president 13- A PUBI. IC~ I..IBRARY IN SERVICE. BOX $57 K£NAIo Ai_ASKA 9961 REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1979 Circulation Adult Juvenile Easy Books Fiction 1~07 611 1136 Non-Fiction 1~87 125 242 Total Book Circulation Films, Phonodises, Pamphlets, Periodicals, AV Equipment, Puzzles, Cassettes Total Circulation 5008 325 Additions Adult Juvenile Oifts 23 2 Purchases 37 10 Total Book Additions Phonodises Total Additions Easy Books 1 Total 76 Remedial and Re-worEed Books ~nterlibraryLoan= Ordered BOo~ 33 Phonodiscs/AV 65 lnterlibraryLonas by ou~ Library A~ult Received Juvenile Easy Books 3 2 Returned 33 5333 8O Total 3O Volunteers l~umber 19 Total Hours 226~ ~neo~e Fines and Sale Books Lost or Damaged Books Xerox $293.30 ".50 162.75 Total Income for August $662.55 Borrower's Cards August, 1979 Kenai North Kenai Kasilof Clam Gulch Sterling Anchorage Oirdvoo~ 98 2O ? 2 2 Total Cards Issued Alan Bullock Dr. Hansen Linda Charver Mrs. Shaw Kathy Henderson DATE RECEIVED 8/9/?9 8/is/79 8/16/79 8/21/79 8/22/79 Gary Love biary Ann Tweedy Leroy/Boyse 8/24/79 -8/27/79 8/28/79 CITY OF KENAI tIT! .... ?ETtTIO;; ;.',O,':TIILY REI'ORT DATE INk'EST. SERVICE RE~U~TED Sterling Street needs to be maintained Road by Benco Building is rough Drainage problem in Central Heights Hydrant leaking on Forest Drive Last road in VIP needs speed limit signs 1st road past Robinson's Grocery needs oiling Birch Street needs oil Need signs - slow children at play on Lupine at end of Thompson Park 2nd Avenue needs to be oiled COMPLETED 8/10/79 8/1S/79 8/16/79 a/21/79 8/24/79 8/28/79 8/28/79 8728/79 DATE CITIZEN NOTIFIED DEPARTI~ENTAL REPORT Street bladed Crews maintain only 24' wi~e roadway Paved road ~ncompassed b~ private owners Hydrant fixed Signs ~t up. Oilin~ truck is bet~g repaired at this time Will oil as soon as possible. Oiler is being repaired at this time- will oil asap. Public l~orks will ~eview the need for signs. Oiler is being repaired and will oil as soon as possible. DATE · ;.~ 12 RECEIVED Citizen 8/2/79 Richard Steigleman 8/2/79 Nancy Herron 8/I/79 Sanders 8/6/79 Howard Hackney 8/'6/79 Paul Vozar 8/6/79 Susan Wells' 8/6/79 Sharon Raymond' 8/7/79 Joanne Peck .8/8/79 Mrs. Mishou 8/8/79 b~rlene Dean 8/i0/79 Denise ~¢ise 8/20/79 Bli~e 8/20/79 Denny Burns 8/20/79. Downs 8/20/79 Denny Heselius 8/20/~9 Rolan Lynn ~/22/79 Judy Koplin 8/22/79 £ileen Wik 8/25/79 SERVI~ ,REQUESTED Great Dane keeps barking. Lost Malamute male. L&st chihauhua type terrier, Woodland- Male Siberian llusky lost-Soldotna 'Dogs running loose in Inlet View Stray dogs- Toyon Villa Lost yellow tabby - Woodland Sub. · Lost dog in High School ar~a Lost calico cat in Wildwood Ext. LoDge dogs running and jumping on tenants Lost Germ. Shephe~,! - Dolly Varden Oogs'attacking her dog.. Found Irish Setter stray - s~ck. Lost Pit Bu~l male - Wilson Dr. Dogs getting into garbage- Beaver Loo~ Lost' shepherd and pit bull Dogs in Wildwood a problem. Found 2 puppies. L~st St..Bernard/Shep. - First'and Birch CIIY OF KE:~AI CITIZEN PETITION gONI'HLY REPORT DATE INVEST. COMPLETED 8/2/79 8/~/~ 8/~/79 8/6/79 8/6/79 8/6/79 · a/6/79 8/7/79 8/8/79 8/8/79 · '.8)i0/79 8/20/79 :. 8/20/79 8/20/79 8/20/79 s/2o/79.' 8/~'2/79 8/22/7.9 s/2~/79 · . : · .: , '..':.?..~ DATE CITIZEH ~OTIFIED DEPARTL'E~TAL REPORT Contacted Owners. Lost. Dog file, ~ Lost Dog filed Lost Dog file, Patrol daily and contacted owners Patrol d~ily Lost cat file Lost dog file Lost cat file PicRed up dog and contacted o~ners Lost Dog file. Contacted bwner Picked up 'dog. '' Contacted o~ners Patrol City }-imits.daily. Keep in Lost Dog File. Found dog. DATE RECEIVED Sorensen -8/24/79 Vesta. 8/24/79 Becky Langsten 8/29/79 Robert Brewster 8/30/79 CITY OF KE.~AI CITIT. F'~ PFTrTT~V '~.."~.~y P~-PORT DATE If;VEST. SERVICE REQUESTED CO!.fPLETED Pick up stray kitten. 8/24/79 Large dog disturbing the peace. 8/24/79 Lost Pit Bull/Shep. Island Lake 8/29/79 Female Germ. Shep. keeping children 8/30/79 from going to school DATE CITIZE~I ROTIFIED DEPAP.~E~AL REPORT Picked up cat. Contacted .ow,~er Lost dog fil'e ~ontacted o~-ner. ANII~IAL CON'IROL REPOR'[ IMPOUNDED DESTROYED D.O .A. ADOPTED CLAIMED August 84 54 17 2 Left £rom July - 2 Carried to Sept. ~ Diet r l~at l~a ~,~, 7} &~et gl~trfdt7 3,~61,(~ 2 P~t. ~l~ ~/~r~ Fire 3,126.75 ~J~flla~ ~l~g Fire ~t ~l~ '74 ~f~ ~12.$$ ~ro P~ gl ~r~ Hre l ,~i, 16 5,249.73 9~7 ~7,~ lO~Sfl, 10372 10140 100~9 10~19 8,767.]8 ~2,8~3.81 18,6&2o~! 225,000o00 Office 8upplies office gupplles Office ~upplles Vertical Piles Overhead Projector Office Supplies ~gost F~llcal Insarane~ Traoafer of gu~do Cert. of Deposit 9/6/79 Cert, of Deposit 9/18/79 City Atto~sey City Clerk Fire /mlnal Control ~lbrary Library ~ibrary ~&~ Council on Aging Var~s TCD TCD Office ~upplJes IOF,9~ 101~6. 020~2 10308, 10~02 Office ~pplles 1;,80 10156 Office 9upplles 9,90 10~02 Office ~upplies 76,21 10~28, 10189 1011~ g~I1 ?ools/~lnor 191ulp, 7~,~6 103~ ~hi~ry b~ol~ent 219,00 Office 5upplioo ~1,65 1003~, 1~36 Health Insurance Transfer of Fonds ~tire~ont Central Treasury 8,7~7,78 &2,83{,81 18,6~2,51 250,000,00 for Fire Tr.ck Pr~-.~s/I~-al Fr~ l~ulati~ ~EIL~ ¢.t~J~ICIL M~PJ'~/AL 9/191?9 'Fire Shop Jail ~ncfl on Aging Shop t~eratlng Supplies P~patr/Haint. ~uppIle~ Professional Services 6,888.95 650°00 ~36.00 1,500.00 1,050.00 .LE~.q E THIS INDENTURE of lease made and entered into this day of October, 1979 by and between PEHINSULA ~ITERPRISE$, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alaska, hereinafter called Lessor, and the City of Kenai, a home rule municipality organized and existinq umder the laws of the State of Alaska, hereinafter called Lessee, WI THESSETH: WIIEREAS, Lessee desires to lease the following described property, and Lessor is willing to lease the same to the Lessee under the terms and conditions hereinafter stated; The said Lessor, for and in consideration of the rents and cOvenants hereinafter mentioned on the part of the Lessee to be paid and performed, has let and leased, and by these presents does hereby let and lease to the said Lessee, the following: Lots 16, l?, 18 and 19, located on the Kenai Airport, Kenai, Alaska, including the hangar and any improvements thereon, to have and to hold for the term of six (6) months, beginning on the 1st day of October, 1979. The Lessee agrees to pay the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per r~)nth for the aforementioned premises, the first payment to be made on the 1st day of October, 1979, and a like amount on the 1st day of each month thereafter for the term of this ~ase, or an extension thereof. The Lessee has examined and knows the condition of said premises and has received the same in good order and accept Th~ Lessee may not assign or sublet any portion of tho' premises covered by this I~ase without first having obtained written consent by the Lessor. · he ~essee covenants and agrees that it will not do, or permit anything to be done on said premises, bring or keep a~y~hing thereon, which will conflict with the laws relating to fires, or with the regulations of the fire department, or with any insurance policy or policies upon said building or any part thereof. The Lessee covenants and agrees that it will not suffer or commit any waste of said premises, and at the expiration of this Lease it will quit and peaceably svrrender said premises in as good condition as reasonable use and wear thereof will permit, damage by fire or the elements excepted; and that the Lessor, its agents and servants, may at all reasonable times enter upon said premises to view the same. Lessee shall pay for all heat and utilities necessar~ to the operatxo~ of the leased premises. Lessee agrees to save Lessor harmless from any and all damages arising £rom personal lnJurie~ received by any person or persons whomsoever, whether employed in or about, or visitors or guests to the demised premises or any portion thereof, and from any of the appurtenances thereto incident. Lessee agrees to do n~, ~ct ~¢1 permit no act to be done tc caus~ any lien to matur_ against the above described premises. The Lessor covenants and agrees hereby that the Lessee paying said rent in the manner aforesaid and performing the other covenants, terms and conditions of this Lease on the par~ of said Lessee to be kept and performed, may and shall have the right at all times during the term of this Lease to quietly and peaceably ..... ~"'~, r ....... ...... , use, OcCUpy and enjoy the said leased premises, but if any default be made in the keeping of any covenant agreed to be kept by the Lessee, then it shall be lawful for the Lessor, at its opttnD, to terminate this Lease and reenter upon said premises and the whole thereof. In the event the above described premises shall be destroyed or so damaged by fire or other casualty as to become unfit for occupancy thereof by the Lessee, and if they shall become so badly damaged that the premises cannot be repaired within sixty (60) days from the happening of said injury, then at the option of the parties hereto, this Lease shall cease and become null and void from the date of such damage or destruction, and said Lessee shall immediately surrender said premises and all interest therein, and rent shall be paid only to the time of such surrender. If said building shall be destroyed by fire, or partially destroyed as mentioned in the preceding sentence, but the building can be repaired within sixty (60) days, then the Lease is to remain in effect, but the Lessee is to pay rent only for the period during which the building is satisfactory for occupancy. Nothing in this clause, however, shall be construed as a release from liability, either under this Lease or otherwise, in the event the loss or damage shall be caused by the wilful acts of the Lessee. The Lessee covenants and agrees that at the termination of this Lease it will remove from the above described premises all property thereon that does not belong to the Lessor; and, in the event Lessee fails to do so, the Lessor may move the same to a place of storage to be chosen by Lessor, at the risM and expense of the Lessee. Should ~t be necessary for the Lessor to bring legal action against the Lessee for the collection of monies, waste to premises, legal action in ejectment or any other legal action which may be brought by the Lessor, the Lessee agrees to pay the costs of such legal actions, together with a reasonable attorney's fee. The Lessee hereby covenants and agrees to pay to the Lessor the renta! above specified for the full term of this Lease and at the ti~ and in the manner set forth. It is agreed that default in payment of the rent for a period of ten (10) days after notice of said default shall work a forfeiture of the Lease at tho option of the Lessor. It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that in the event of a breach of any of the covenants and provisions hereof on the part of the Lessee, the Lessor may retain such sums so paid by the Lessee to it as advance rent, and the same shall be deemed to be liquidated damages for such breach of this Lease, and this Lease shall be forfeited by Lessee. LEASE - Page 2 Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. .i' Lease-Page 3 Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. In the event that the L~ssee shall become bankrupt or shall make a voluntary assiqnment for the benefit of creditors, or in the event that a receiver of the Lessee shall be appointed, then, at the option of the Lessor and upon five (5) days notice to the Lessee of the exercise of such option, this Lease shall cease and come to an end. The Lessee shall have an option to renew this Lease, upon the same terms and conditions herein, for a period of one (1) year, provided, however, that Lessee shall notify Lessor of its intent to exercise said option at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, sa~d notification to be in writing, addressed to Lessor, c/o P. O. Box 212, Kenai, Alaska 99611, by certified mail. DATED on the date and year hereinabove, first written. ~,ENI,~su,.~, ~TERPRIS~S, Lesso,:/ ..'Z" ./. James E. CITY OP KENAI Lessee By :j Charles A. Brown Acting City Manager STATE OF ALASKA ) )sS THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) T}II$ IS TO CERTIFY, that on this /~/~day of September, 1979, before me the u~dersigned, a Notary Public in and for Alaska, personally appeared J~E$ E. CARTER, known to me to be the SecretaryTreasurer of Peninsula Enterprises, Inc., and he acknowledged to me that he executed the foregoing instrument for and on behalf of said corporation pursuant to authorization of its Board of Directors, and that he executed the same freely and voluntarily for the intents and purposes therein set forth. WITNESS my hand and seal on the day and year hereinabove last written. .Nota~,y Public in and for Alaska My Commission Expires: ~-, 2:~ ~ STATE OF ALASKA ) )ss THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Tills IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of 1979, before me, the undersigned, a N~-~ary Publ~c'in and for Alaska, personally appeared CHARLES A. BRO~;N known to me to be the Acting City Manager of the City of Kenai, and he acknowledged to me that he executed the foregoing Lease and acknowledged that he had the authority to sign, and that he executed the same freely and voluntarily for the intents and purposes therein set forth. WITNESS my hand and ~eal on the day and year hereinaboVe last written. Notary Public in and for Alaska My Commission Expires:_~ / KENAI CITY COiJ~NCIL - SPECIAL MEETI / / S~-PT~.MB~.R 14, 1979 - 8:00 P.M~ / PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING .~, ' Be NEW BUSINESS 1. Appoinhnent of new member to the ReCreation Commission, 2. Resolution 79-127, directing City Administration to enter into a lease .for warm storage with option to purchase, / 4. Interview and selection precess for appointment of City ~ana~e~. 5. Discussion of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, C. ADJOURNMI~NT KENAI CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1979 - 6:00 P ..~1. PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING MAYOR VINCENT O'REILLY PRESIDING PLEDGE OF A~JJF. GIANCE A. ROLL CALL Present: Edward Ambarian, Charles Bailie, Betty Glick, Ronald Malston, Vincent O'Reilly, Michael Seaman, and Philip Abet. Absenh None AGENDA APPROVAL Councilman Ambarian inquired why Resolution 79-132, item G-3, had been added in that Administration was not directed to add it to the agenda during the work session which set the spseial meetin~ agenda. Councilwoman Glick advised that the Resolution was added at her request to the City Attorney and such request had been submitted on Wednesday, September 12, 1979 in time to be properly advertised with the other items on the agenda. City Clerk Sue Peter advised that the Legal Department had ~ot reported the addition nor submitted rite resolution to her for inclusion on the agenda until late in the m~rntng on Friday, September 14th. Therefore, Mayor O'Reilly inquired if there would be any objections to the addition and Councilman Ambarian replied in ~- affirmative. The agenda stood approved as corrected. B, NBW BUSINESS B-l: Appointment to the Recreation Commission Council unanimously eoncurred with the appointment of Ann Shew to the Kenal Reed'cation Commission. B-2: Resolution 79-127 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-127 by title only. "Be it resolved by the Council that the City Administration be directed to enter into a lease at $2,500 per month with Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. to lease lots 16, 17, 18, and 19 located on the Kenal A~rt, including the hangar and any improvements thereon ." MOT ION: Councilman Bailie moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for adoption of Resolution 79-127. Miles Dean - spoke in opposition of the City acquiring the facility for warm storage as Mr. Dean reported he had worked in the building in the "dead of winter" and "nearly froze to death~' Councilman Ambarian intuited if ~lr. Dean was aware that the heating system had been replaced with natural gas forced air heat. SPECIAL MEETING, Page 2 John Williams stated as a taxpayer of Kenni he too would object to the purchase of the building for several reasons including the fact that the building is too far from the present shop facility location as well ns the fact that Mr. Williams wished to have the matter researched relative to the fact that a plat of the Airport lands indicates that no lenses are to be renewed in that area. Mr. Williams suggested that if the City wished to have a satellite warm storage facility it would be better located in the Thompson Park area. Councilman Aber inquired if Mr. Williams had an opinion, as a realtor, as to ~,hich parcel of property is more valuable, the property that the present shop facility is located on or the Concession Area? Mr. Williams responded that no further development should be made on the Concession lots, however, the area of the present shop facility was a good potential development area. Chester Cone advised that he would object to the purchase of the building in that it was badly located and it would be very difficult to move the building to another location. Tom Wagoner - inquired if a study had been done on the cost to heat the facility and ff the City had conducted an nenergy audit survey~ -- until this matter had been resolved, Mr. Wagoner suggested tabling the matter. Charles Crabaugh - advised that he had worked in the building in 1961 and stated that the building was so cold that it was difficult to work in - Mr. Crabaugh would, there, fore, object to the purehnse. George Navarre - statea that he was in favor of the City purchasing the facility for warm storage as Alaska Chrysler had utilized the facility for a body shop. Mr. Navarre suggested that Council sit down and develop a plan for a properly planned City shop yard o Joseph Langston - stated that he felt the building would be suitable for warm storage for the City as he was Manager of Alaska Cht'ysler and the building had been used by them for the pex*iod 1977-78. John Williams commented that perhaps the owner would be agTeeable to a short term lease with the City and in the spring the City could achieve more detailed and complete planning fo~ a suitable shop area. Leo Oberts - stated that he was owner of Alaska Chrysler and paid the heating bills on the Mukluk Building and stated that he felt his high bills were resultant of the fact that the ceiling was so high. Mr. Oberis also commented that the City should look into whether or not their insurance would be higher if the building were not located within the present shop facility. Mayor O'Reilly asked that Vice Mayor Gliek assume the Chair. Mayor O'Reilly stated that he was not interested in causing undue hardship to a local businessman who has perhaps extended himself t~ vulnerability in an attempt to meet SPECIAL MEETDIG. Page 3 [ISS the City needs and the 15tayor also extend an ~pology if the situation cells for it, for the theft of property from the "Mukluk' building ff such theft wa~ caused by City empkr~ee actions. ~Sisyor O'Reillv further commented that no party ia going to come out with a perfect bargain. 3h~yor O'Rellly stated he would support the resolution if the followin~ ~mendments were made: I) provide for warm storage to meet this winter's possible adverse effect on winter needed equipment; 2) provide a rental income sufficient to allow and guarantee installation of minimum modifications, that is properly operating dom's, and within a reasonable range of rent expense. Suggested level $3,000/month. 3) seek FAA approval and funding of proposed new building as submitted by Kenai Steel Buildings (arran) et a price of $139,000. Such buildin~ to be located at the site of the present City yards. ~ to begin as soon as possible considering fundtn~ approval, 4) issue leasee on Concession area to present owner of improvements. Such leases to be for a period of 10 years and to be far usage compatible to clear zone purposes. Mayor O'Reflly further commented that the Council must get on with the business et hand ss thore are issues before Council which need i~-~.~ediate attention (Section 36 lands, City Hall, ere. ). Mayor O'Reilly assumed the Councilman Malaton lnquh, ed ff the Pinnace Director could advise where funding for the lease of the building would be derived from and Fimmee Dfreeter Brown advised that there were no funds designated for 1case of warm storage and such monies would have to'be transferred from various accounts. MOTION - DIVISION OF QUESTION ~ Councilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for a division of the question relative to leasing arrangements and purohasing arrangements. Motion passed by roll call vote with Couneilmembers Ambarian, Seamen and Aber voting no. M~'or O'Reilly advised that Council would notv deal with the first item included in the resolution which is Council directing Administration entering into a lease for six months for warm storage. MOTION: Councilwoman Gliok moved, seconded by Councilman Malston for purposes of discussion, that the City Administration be directed to enter into a lense with Peninsul~ Enterprises for a period of six months with an amended amount of $3,000/month whioh will provide a rental income sufficient to allow and guarantee installation of minimum modtfioetions and properly operating doors. Couneilnmn Ambarlan stated that the City is once again enter4ng into negotiations and it will take at least two weeks for the process. Couneilnum Ambarian suggested that Council adjourn into an executive session to discuss the leasing matter with Mr. Carter. i $1~ECIAL ~IE£TING, Page 4 Counc*llman P. laloton pointed out that the Ftnanee Director had just advi~i that there were little monies available and if the City were to enter into n lease for six months at $3,000/month, where would the financing come from? Cotmeilman Bailfe inquired from the Public Works Dlreetm' exactly what pteee~ of equipmeat ~;ould be left out and Public 1qorks Director Kmmelts advised of the pieces he would consider leaving out as these pieces of equipment would not be as vital for quick start-up as the others. Council discussion followed relative to the pros and eons of the City purehasing/leasing warm storage as well as questions involving the renewal of the lots in the area known as the Concession Area. Councilman Aber stated that in tryin~ to resea~ah the Concession lots, he had contacted an individual involved in setttn~ up these lots and l~. Aber advised that the individual was in the audience tonight. Mr. Abet reported that he was told the intent was not to terminate exiatin~ leases but it was felt tl~et the FBO*s should be located to the north of the Concession lots. Councilman Abet stated that this was a City decision and not an FAA deeieion and the matter was also reflected in an old master plan of the aivpert. Councilman Abet stated that if there is difficult in resolvtn~ the matter of the renewals of leases in the Concession area, it would be appropriate for the Council to make amendments accordingly. City Attorney Sehlereth stated ihat he looked into the matter and the lease referred to eerlier relative to gte non-renewal clause was recorded in July of 1961. In 1953 the land was deeded to the City of Kenai fi-om the FAA (United Star, of America). The existing lease dated ~.lay 9 o 1986 between the City of Konat and Peninsula Entex-prlses ineludas a renewable clause o Councilman l~lalsto'n asked only that Council consider where the monies would be coming tro~]. QUESTION: Amendment passed by ~olI call vote with Counellmembers Ambaidan, Seaman and Aber voting City Attorney Sehlereth stated that from a lebml standpoint, it would be very difficult to include a clause within the lease a~eement wherein the lessor was to provide certain modifications -- City Attoxmey Schlereth rated he would Father the lease be for lease of the fa~fltty only and f~ the City dash'ed aartain improvements, they would do it themselves. MOTION - RECONSIDERATION Couneilwoman Olfek moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, fox' immediate reaonsideratton of the amendfr~ motion. Motfon passed unanimously by roll call vote. MOTION: Councilwoman Oliok moved, seconded by Count, ii.an ~lalston, to autholdze Administration to ente~ into a lease with Peninsula Enterpldses fox' a peidod of six months with option to renew at a monthly rental of $2,500. SPECIAL ~*EFING. Page 5 With Couucil concureence, Jim Certer, one of the owners of the building spoke before Council. Mr. Carter advised that he would be willing to lease the building to the City at $2,500 and no modifications be made to the building by the owners and such lease would run until the City has made a decision to either purchase that bufldint~ or construct a new building at another location. City At~J~ey Schlereth advised that the City may then be subleasing the building for a period beyond the term of the lease and would recommend cleaner hnguage. With consent of seeond, Councilwoman Gliek withdrew her motrin. Mayor O'ReiUy requested that Vice Mayor Glick assume the chafF. MOTIOI~: Couneil___m~n O'Reilly moved, seeonded by Couneiiman Ambarian for purl~ses of discussion, to amend the main motion that the rented of the facility will be at $3,000 foF a period of six months and improvements will bc %~ade, particuflarly to the doors, st the _e-~i_~_afaetfon Councilman Ambarlan inquired ff this proposal would be acceptable to I~. Carter? Mr. Carter replied that it would not be acceptable. QUESTION: Motion ~fafled by roll call vote with Councilman O'Reflly votin~ yes. Mayor O'Reilly enee ~ge..in assumed the chair. Councilman Malston commented that the City lived with the building °as is" last winter and if the City is considering constructing a new faeflf~, why not negotiate the short-~ lease for a period of six months with no modif~ff~. Couneflmsn Baffle inquired ff Mr. Carter would be acceptable to a six month lease without cer~_~_~ provisions attached? Mr. Certer replied that he felt the matter had been '~tcked around~ long enough and would secept the six month lease. MOTION: Counoflman Maiston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, to amend the motion to lease the faeiilty foF a period of six months at a monthly rental of $2,500 starting Ootobe~ I, 1979. Motion passed by roU call vote with Couneilmembers Abet fln~ Ambari~n voting no. MAIN, AS A~IENDED: Passed by roU call vote with Couneilmembers Aber and Ambarian voting no. SI~ECIAL MEETING, Page MOTION: Councilman Ambartan moved, seconded by Councilman Abet, that the City enter into a purchase agreement with Peninsulo Enterprises to purcl~mse the building for $133,000 contingent upon receipt of a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration. Motion f~_!!ed by roll call vote. Voting no; Bailie, Gliek, Malston and O'Reilly. Voting yes; Ambarian, Seaman and Aber. Cotmetlwoman Gliok stated in view of the fact that she had asked for preparation of a resolution authorizin~ Administration to go to bid for ~onstruetion of a new building, she would like the resolution included on the agenda for the Wednesday evening meeting. City Clerk Peter advised that the Charter provides for inclu~on of items to the agenda 24 hom. s prior to a meeting end would include the resolution under new business. With Council concurrence, Mr. Carter reminded Council that back in February he had formally requested an extension to the term of his lease and as it had been eight months since the matter had been presented to the City, he would like some type of teapot, se. City Attorney Schiereth advised that the matter would be included on the agenda for the regular Council meeting of October 3, 1979. Interview end selection process - City Manager Mayor O'Reilly Int~-oduced Mr. Gordon Ryen, City Manager applicant, end advised ' Mr. Ryan that the Council had extensively studied his application, which was very- complete. M~'. Ryan spoke to Council on his concepts of the position. FoHowin~ the discussions, Councilman Malston suggested that a decision be made at the meetfl~ of Council Wednesday evening. Council so concurred. ADJOURNMENT Due to the lateness of the hour, Council adjourned the special' meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 'Sue/C Peter, City Clerk ROGERS & BALDWIN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFtC£ BOX 4~.10 K£NAI, ALASKA 99611 T£L£PHON;' (907) 28.3 - 716.7 September 19, 1979 TO: City Council Members City Council Meeting of September 19, 1979 Transfer of Liquor License held jointly by the City of Kenai and Daddy's Money This letter is to advise the City council that it it appears that the law firm of Rogers & Baldwin will need to appear before the ABC Board to object to the transfer of above referenced liquor license. The reason for the objection to transfer is that Daddy's Money is indebted to our clients, Superior Building Supply, Inc., KSRM, Inc. and KSRM d/b/a KQOK for significant amounts of money. As a matter of public interest, the City council should protect businesses in the Kenai area and not condone the transfer of the liquor license until these debts are paid in full. To do otherwise would be adverse to small business interests in this community. State statute requires that all debts of Daddy's Money shall be paid before the liquor license will be transferred. 0R0~.~R Es truly, Attorney at Law REH/aj O ~T ,Clerk ,'of Kenal P.O. Box 580 Kenai, Alaska 996 Dear' Ms. Peter: ~. The Alcoholic BeJerage Control Board intends to a the encloSed~! application for transfer of a liquor licen,se.. A ~1 ,~1/ u DAOOY'S MONEY; Richard Kochanuski, ,.)oTs;;h Andersonma~C-i~t~f'Kenai ? '. _..~. ~,. ~,~Kenai Municipal Airport Terminal Building; Mail: P.O. Box 4343, Kenai, ~ .~Ak. 99611. Transferred From: City of Kenai and Aviation Consultants, ~. ,.~'~nc...~, ;Pres. G. R. E itel', VP/Sct./Tres. Kenneth G. Butters; same location..~ ~ of issues pursuant .to the Administrative Procedures Act (AS 44.62) within ~ 30 days from receipt of this letter. 'If we do not receive a response, ~ ~ the Board will assume you have no objection to the issuance and w.ill k~ L Thank you for your c ~'--~-'"'"~ ~ BLC:I~sI I hoon . reco CITY OF KENAI THE CITY'S SHOP BUILDING BY THE GENERAL FUND. WHEREAS, the City's shop building was funded in part with monies provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who require that the building be used for airport purposes, and ~'~EREAS, the City is presently using this building primarily for general government purposes, and this has been deemed by FAA to be in violation of our agreement with FAA regarding use of such building, and WHEREAS, the City has the option of purchasing the building from the Airport Land System for 62 1/2% (the original FAA share of the project) of the existing fair market value of said building, and WHEREAS, a current (October 10, 1978) appraisal of the original building shows the existing value to be $60,000, and WHEREAS, the FAA has accepted this appraised value, and WHEREAS, proper accounting practices require that all ap- propriations of City monies be made by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that: Section 1: The Council of the City of Kenai, Alaska hereby accepts the current appraised value of the original City Shop Building of $60,000. Section 2: Estimated revenues and appropriations are hereby increased as follows: General Fund Increase Estimated Revenues: Contribution from Reserve for Capital Improvements $37,500 Increase Appropriations: Transfer to Airport Land System $37,500 Ordinance No. 523-79, page 2 ~irport Land System Increase Estimated Revenues: Transfer from General Fund $37,500 Increase Appropriations: Transfer for Reserve for Airport Improvements $37,500 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST: Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Approved by Finance:~ VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR First Reading: September 5, 1979 Second Reading: September 19, 1979 Effective Date: Septen%ber 19, 1979 LDENROD · ACCOUNTING j ARY- ACCOUNTING E- SHIPPING & RECEIVING~ EN · APPROVED COPY K- REQUISITIONER PURCHASE O~D~ CiTY KENAi 10 P.O. BOX 580 PHONE 283..7538 KENAI, ALASKA 99611 VmDO~NO., F- -1 Yukon Office Supply L. Kema, A~_,,__,,ka _1 ,sm ~m-q[- v IL I HiS PURCHASE OP.D~~ ALL PA~ AND PA~ No. SHIP VIA: Customer Pick Up BY DATE ~ SEPA~TE ON INVOI~ THE FI~ DIR~OR OR HIS A~RIZ~ A~ ITEtA NO. DE~:~..RIPTION I~R Airl'lClf I ~'~i~ll v ~ UN,r UNiT ~,.~a~ ^~OUNT I ~0 W~ ~ve~es Box ~. 00 2 P~t~ ~ & Blue) 2 b~, ~.76 23.52 Less 15~ TOT~ 34.52 CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. 522-79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA INCREASING ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND ENTITLED "AIRPORT RU~';AY PAVING" IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000. WHEREAS, the Airport Runway Paving Project, ADAP 6-02-0142-04, has experienced cost overruns in construction of approximately $85,000, and WHEREAS, there are sufficient monies in contingency to fund approximately $20,000 of these overruns, and WHEREAS, correspondence and discussion with the Federal Aviation Administration indicates that a grant increase will be granted to the City for these cost overruns, and WHEREAS, the State of Alaska Division of Aviation is expected to participate in the increase, and WHEREAS, proper accounting practices require that all ap- propriations of City monies be made by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the following increases in estimated revenues and appropriations be made: Capital Pr0~ects-Airport Runway Paving Increase Estimated Revenues: Transfer from Airport Land System State Grants Federal Grants $2,031 2,031 60,938 $65,000 Increase Appropriations: Construction $65~000 Be it further ordained that the following transfer of monies be made in the 1979-80 Airport Land System to fund the City's share of this increase: From: Airport Land-Contingency $2,031 To: Airport Land-Transfers $2,031 Ordinance 522-79, page 2 PASSED BY TI{B COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST= VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, City Clerk First Reading: September 5, 1979 Second Reading: September 19, 1979 Effective Date: September 19, 1979 Approved by Finance: CITY OF KE~AI ORDINANCE NO. 521-79 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KE~$AI, ALASKA INCREASING ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS IN THE 1979-80 ST~E JAIL CONTRACT FU~D I~ THE ~O~T OF $3,600. WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has approximately $24,000 in the City ofKenaiSt~eJ.D Contrs~'tFund b~flnce ~tJune 30,1979;~nd WHEREAS, the Police Chief has compiled a list of items that are needed: 1. Installation of security windows in the jail cells. 2. Acquisition of one new freezer. 3. 'Acquisition of a 4-door, radio equipped, replace- ment sedan for jail use. 4. Installation of fencing for rear of jail area. 5. Acquisition of storage building. WHEREAS, at this ti~e, installation of security windows and acquisition of a freezer need to be undertaken immediately, and ~EREAS, proper accounting practices require that all ap- propriations of City monies be made by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF T~E CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the following increases in estimated revenues and appropriations be made: State Jail Contract Increase Estimated Revenues: Contribution from Fund Balance $3,600 Increase Appropriations: Jail-Buildings Jail-Machinery & Equipment $3,000 600 $3,600 PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THIS 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Approved by Finance:_~.~n~. VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR First Reading: September 5, 1979 Second Reading: September 19, 1979 Effective Date: September 19, 1979 CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-132 A I~ESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO GO OUT FOR FOR~.%L BIDS FOR A WAPJ4 STORAGE BUILDING. WHEREAS, it has been determined that additional warm storage is necessary due to the requisition of additional snow removal equipment, and WHEREA~, the City has received informal proposals for the construction of the Warm Storage Building, and W~E~AS, the City is desirous of receiving formal bids. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA that the Administration is hereby authorized to proceed with obtaining formal bids to construct a Warm Storage Building on the site of the present shop complex and as per specifications as outlined in the letter of March 30, 1979 which is attached. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 19th ~ay of September, 1979. ATTEST~ VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR Sue C. Peter, City Clerk CITY OF KENAI P. O. BOX S80 KEN~, AL~KA 9961 TGEPHONE 283 - March ~0, 1079 Dear Sir: As a follow up to our previous telephone conversation, the City of Kenai would like your company to submit a proposal for construction of a warm storage building in our shop yard. Site work other than foundation excavation at this location will be minimal and need not be included in your proposal. Minimum requirements are as follows: 1. 5" concrete slab with 6 x 6 #6/6 reinforcement 2. 60' x 100' steel building 16' eave height 4, 3' girt @ walls 5. 42" foundation - insulated and moisture protected 6. 4 ea. 14' x 14' overhead cargo doors - insulated 7. 2 ea. 3' x 7' steel personnel doors - insulated 8. lighting package" 9. 2 ea. 110¥ receptacles 10. natural gas heating package 11. 20 psf wind loading; seismic zone 4 12. 40 psf live loading 13. 4" fiberglass insulation with vapor barrier 14. factory applied, painted roof (white) 15. factory applied, painted wall (color) 16. 5-year guarantee on roof construction This project will require complete construction drawings, stamped by a registered Engineer/Architect licensed to practice Civil Engineering/Architecture in the State of Alaska. Appropriate bonding as well as project inspection will be required. After receipt of your proposal, the City of Kenai will be able to appropriate money for this project and invite formal b~ds for same, Thank you for your assistance. : Sincerely, Bill Nelson, City Engineer BX/jet September 11, 1979 CITY OF KENAI ¥ P. O. BOX $80 KEN,M, AtASF. A 99&~! ~E~NE 283 - 7~S TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Keith Kornelis, Director of Public Works Selection of Architect for New Kenai City Hall The City of Kenai is accepting proposals from Architects for the design of the new City Hall. These proposals should be submitted prior to September 14~ 1979 at 5 p.m. The Administration will organize the proposals in an orderly fashion and deliver them to Council at the September 19th City Council meeting. I recommend that the Public Works Committee review each of the proposals. If there are many proposals submitted, it might be desirable for the Public Works committee to narrow do~fn the proposals to three. These three firms could then submit their proposals ~lohg'.with a presentation from their firm to the Council as a whole. The Council could then make their decision as to who they want to do the work. Attached are three articles that may be of some help in deciding the procedures for selecting this Architect. It might be a good idea for the Council to discuss the procedure to use for the selection at this upcoming September 19th Council meeting. gK/jet Attachment · O 197~ by the Amerlc~ Iflstlt,~tl A Recommended Procedure For Selecting a Professional Planning Consultant PREAMBLE. Prospective clients seeking professional planning services from consult- ing firms are sometimes perplexed as to whal procedures should be followed in order fo assure the seleclion o! a qualified firm. However. the process of choosing a planning consulting firm is similar Io that of seeking engineering or architectural services. Proper procedures in lhe selection of a planning firm can help the clienl avoid win,fed motion and common pitfalls in contracl negotiations and execulion. Note that nothing in these guidelines shall be construed to prohibit a client from negotiating with a single consulting firm. This procedure applies equally 1o contractual relationships belween public agencies and those belween public agencies and private enterprise. A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. Tho following basic procedural slaps are recommended as an ethical, business.like, and sysfemalic approach Io fha task of select- ing a planning firm. 1, Define the nature of the planning work or development pmbtem sufficiently to permit proper choice el consultants to be considered for the work. 2, Con- sider the general qualifications of a number of firms which appear to be capable of meeting Ihe requirements of the assignment. The size of the planning firm is not an indication of competence or suitability for lhe particular planning work or project being considered. (A community or private organization which needs help in identifying sources of planning consulting services may oblain informalion from the American Insfitule of Planners. the American Society of Consulting Planners or the officml planning assistance agency in ils state.) 3, Choose for inlerviews one or mom (preferably not more Ihan ihreo) firm~ which are believed to be lhe best quahfled 4, lnlerv,ew Ihe selected firms separately, explaining fully the proposed assignmenl and Ihe selection procedure to be followed. Carefully examine the qualifications of each firm by interviewing not more Ihan one at a h~r,e, scheduling at lea,it an hour for each interview and spacing inlerviews to allow adequale time for deliberalion on each hrm Take inlo accounl especially the following crileria: la) Experience and Reputation. Since planning problems are usually very complex, if is essenhal that lhe clienl be fully sahsfied lhat lhe hr;n has had a vaned experience. This will enable if fo put lhe chant's problems *n Ihe proper perspective. D~rect experience In pl~qnmnq, in odher a con~ulhng or pubhc planning agency capacity ~s a reliable source of know-how in Ihe planning field, where success may depend upon the applicahon of solulions succP_ssfully altempted elsewhere lb) Background of Perlonnel Available, A professional planning educal~on on tho part of personnel to be ass~oned ~s ;mporlanl. but this should not be the excluswe crilerion u.~ed in selechon Many professionals in allied lields such as archJlecture, engi- neering, social or polilical science, have achieved a high level of excellence in planning on the strength o! many years of relevant experience. Impressive academic credentials alone in allied holds, without planning experience, usually should not be considered a substilule for such experience. (c) Workload. Reputable firms do not overload Iheir staffs with responsibility for more projects than they can comfor~bly discharge. Frequenlly, at the time of Ihe selection process, the client has no control over the precise time when the program will start. This is especially true in federally-assisled programs, where the time gap b3twesn approval of Ihe program and authorization to proceed can sometimes exceed one year. Therefore, unless the prc,;~ram is to commence immedialely, the client's best assurance that the proper staff will be available at the appointed time is the firm's reputation for promptness of performance and effectiveness of work. (d) Avallabtlibj of All Required Fields of Expertise. Complex planning programs may require special expertise which a given firm may prefer to subcontract Or perform in association with anolher. In such instances, the availability and reputation of all sub- contractors or associale team members should be as carefully considered as that of the principal conlractor. (e) Professional Re~ponaib!llly. Membership of at le{lsl one of lhe firm's principals in lhe American Institute of Planners, or of the firm as a whole in the American Society of Consulting Planners, offers assurance thai the firm's conduct ~s governed by a strict Code of Professional Respons;bili!~, (f) Equal Employment Re~ponslbill~. Reputable firms encourage and provide equal,_. opportunities of employment for qualified women and members of all minority groups. , 5. List the firms you have interviewed in order of desirabilily, based on capability for" carrying out the assignment. 6. Contact your first choice and agree upon a detailed pro- gram of work and a mutually salisfactory fee This should be the first lime Ihere IS any discussion of fee. 7. in lhe event that il is found impossible to agree upon the work pro- gram, fee or other contract details, notify the firm in writing that negolialions are being discontinued. Then begin negotiation wilh Ihe next firm on the list. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. Some pitfalls exist that can stall or frustrate t-~egulialiuns. Once recognized, they can be readily avoided. Here are four examples: 1, Avoid Mesa Inle~iews: i~ is possible Io interview Ioo many consulting firms. The proper use of pre-interview selection techniques will enable the clienl to interview a few qualified consulting firms in depth and provide sufficienl data for a sound selection decision. A successful pre-interview seleclion process should provide consulting firms an opportunity to submit information which would explain the nature and exlenl of services, innovative approaches, if any, and availabilily for future work. In order for such information to be most relevant to Ihe client's problems, a shell prospectus descnbing the problem or Ihe proposed planning program should be made available to all prospeciwe consullanls. The client should also make every effort to determine the experience of prior clienls with con~ultant~ b~inq considered. 2. Avoid Competitive Bidding: Clients are advised not lo Oeprive themselves of com- petent professional assistance by insisting on a bid in competition with others. Compeli- lion is desirable; but it should be on the basis of professional competence and experi- ence. Specific work asslgnmenls and fees should be discussed only after a consultant iS selected. This should not be deemed to preclud~ the consultant from citing cost ex- perience elsewhere On projects of similar magnilude and complexity or from discussing a likely cost range, it being understOOd that the final cost will be a function of the final scope of services agreed upon. I! the client is subject to budgelaty restraints, he should make them known to all pre-selected consullanls. Be wary of planners offerinq "loss- leader services," discounts, rebates, or any olher form of cut-tale pricing of profession~ ) plannir~g services. v 3, Av~l{I No~Wtilte~t Agreements: For Ihe protection of bolh client and firm, the client shoul(t always execu'e a wr*llen agreement w~lh a planning consulting firm, AS a mini- mum, this agreement should specify the work Io be done. Although special demands of the consulting firm may arise during Ihs course of a work program. Ihs firm cannot be expecled to do work outside of its cor~tracl with the client, unless the conlract fee is amended accordingly. 4. Avoid Penally Clauses, Performance Bonds, or Other So. Called "Incentive" Fee- lure~: These am unnecessary provisions in a professional service agreement. Such devices can provoke a reduclion in the quality of service to the client and place emphasis upon less tmporlant aspecls of the agreement. MUTUAL RESPONSIBlUTY. The client has his responsibilities in the selection and hiring of a planning consulting firm as outlined here. Equally important to the client, however, is the professional obligation of the planning consulting firm to pedorm its work competently, in a professional manner and with a sense of social responsibility. The American Institute of Planners and the American Society of Consulting Planners govern the ethical conduct of their members through their Codes of Professional Respons;bility. Services and Fees of a Professional Planning Firm PREAMBLE. The purposes of this seclion are lo: (1) promote a better understanding belween Ihs clienl and the planning consulting firm as to the nature of services lo be rendered and methods of determininq f~.es for such services; (2) reduce the variation of methods used in calculating fees; and (3) assist the client in underslanding common melhods the planning firm uses in determining a fair value for its services. To these ends. the major lypes of planning firm services ere outlined here, and consideration Is cjiven lo Ihs ordinary factors in',rolvcd in computing a fee for .~uch services that will be fair both lo the client and lo Ihs planning consulting firm. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. ~t is not possible Io eslablish standard fee sched- ules to govern the charges of professional planning consulting firms. Variables may be based on the exlent and breadlh of a consultanl's education and experience as well as on the variely, quahty and character of his work. A consultant with an established reputation may demand higher fees than one less well known. A consultanl may be more competent in certain areas of professional work, or more innovative, then others and may be worth higher fees because of the special serwces which he can render. The scale, complexity and importance of the work also w~ll be factors in charges of a consulting firm. The basic slandard of coml~ensahon should be the value of the planning firm's services to the client. In general, fees are hosed on Ihs scope and complexity of the work as measured by the bme of I:)rofessional personnel required to successfully complete it; the experience, educahon. Ira~ning and repulal~on of the firm's personnel; and the kind and quality of planning service wi.ch the firm is prepared to provide Though il is impossible 1o set standard fees. it is feas~ble Io oulline crileria and factors involved in establishing fees· These faclors and criteria are outlined here under four major headings: I. Major lypes of services pedormed IlL Cost faclom IL Types of financial arrangements IV. Professional ethics I. MAJOR TYPES OF SERVICES PERFORMED. The following list is nol in- tended to be complete; ralher it is representative of planning consullanl services. (n) Re. renaissance ~uwey~ and Work Program Development: This may include work- ing with state and local officials and agencies in surveying; needs and opporlunifies relating to physical, social and econom;c development and slructuring a work program outlining Ihe kinds of planning aclivilies Ihat should be underlaken fo deal w,lh the issues identified. (b) Planning Agency Organization and Admini~trellon: This may involve advising plan- ning agencies in slaffing, organizing and developing programs required Io carry out a variely of planning and development relalod aclw,lms. It could involve services ollered in-residence on a continuing or periodic bas;s. (¢) Preparation el Long. end Shorl-range Plans, Policies and Programs: This would include analyzing development problems in deplh, eslabhshing objectives, shaping alter- native policies and programs, and evahJaling lheir impacl as a bas~s for preparing com- prehensive commun~ly and regional plans. (d) Technical Assistance and Special Planning Studies: Such work might involve the provision of advice on urgent developmenl problems or on matters dealing wilh such issues as intergovernmental relations or federal aids; or it could perlam to special func- tional areas of concern at all government levels (e.g., annexation pohcies, feasibility studies, business area development, job training programs, Iow-income hou'~ing and urban renewal stralegies, programming and budgeling aspects of developmental pro- grams, and recommendations on development codes and ordinances). (e) Project PJannlag: This involves the preparation of specific plans for areas under unified conlrol such as new cvmmumhes, shopping centers, college campuses, industrial parks, urban renewal and other similar projecls. (f) Provision of A~ilatance and ?eslimenlt in Courl Ca~es: Often consullants assist in preparing cases in zoning and planning-relaled development litigallon and in providing experl teslimony. Whelher working for a pubhc or private client, a key elemenl of Ihese services is Ihe ablhly et the consulhng hrm Io provide advice based on an undersland- ing of community interrelationships lhat focus on public policy development decisions. Tho range of services which a firm is in a position to provide will depend upon tho disciplines and experience encompassed by it; personnel. The work involved in performing planning serv,ces may relate to the following 12 areas of professional specializahon recognized by Ihe American Instilute of Planners and the American Sociely gl Consulting Planners. 1. Adm~nislral~on for planning and dovelopmenl. 2. Comprehensive physical planning. 3. Resource development. 4. Social planning, 5. Transportation planning. 6. Urban design. /. Research methodology. 8. Economic planning. 9. Envirenmenlal sciences planning. 10. Rvf,ewat plannil~j. 1,!. Planning law. 12. Programming and budgeting. ir-- Ii. TYPES OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. 1he amount and kinds of work Ihs consuttanl does will depend upon Ihs size and complexity of Ihs area involved and kind of local stall resources and dais avadable. The following are common fmanc;al arrangemenls used for the provision of planning and related services. (a) Lump Sum Fee for all Contracled ~ervice~: This arrangement is of advantage to the client due Io ils relative ease of budgeting. However. it can be a problem for Ihs client and the consultsnl, s,nce it is difficult Io anlicipale unknown faclors which could be in- velvet. In fairness Io both parties, there sh(',uld be a dehmle slalemenl of t~me limits and a provis;on for Ihs adjuslmenl of the fee. I! is. of course, r, ecessary Ihal the program and responsibilities of the consultant be carefully specilied in enough detail fo preclude mulual misunderstanding. (b) Fixed Fee for Professional Planning Services--Plus Actual Amount of OUter Ex- penses: Beyond a llxed fee, the l~rm is pa~d the cost incurred in connection with the work based upon Ihs actual cosls incurred. Such costs would include, in addition to payroll and general office overhead, materials, printing and other out-of-pocket costs directly chargeable Io Ihs job. II ~s usual to sol a limit of reimbursable costs in the contract pro- viding lot Ihis type of hnancial arrangemenl, or Io provide that such costs shall not be incurred without prior approval of Ihs chertt. (¢) Fee as Fixed Pementage of Expenses: Compensation is based on the lirm's tech- nical payroll, mull~plied by an agreed-upon factor. Io arrive at the total compensation. This melhod may be combined with a fixed fee or For diem compensation for the per- sonal services of Ihs consulting firm's slaff ~f considerable lime of such staff is required. It is dilficult for lhe client to budgel unless a maximum compensalion is included. This arrangement has the advantages of removing the greater part of unce~lainly from the consulting firm's calculalions in a large undertaking while offering the client a simple method of delermining and auditing fees as well as maximum feasibility in eslablishJng Ihs scope of services Ihat he needs. (d) Per Diem Fees: This method may apply to any el Ihe tirm's personnel, including its principals. It always requires explicit understanding as to what conslitules a "day" and how travel lime and expenses are lo be allocaled. This arrangement is especially advan- tageous for irregular or mdehnite assignmenls. Court testimony is a common example. (e) Contingency Fee: This method involves work by Ihs consulting firm on the basis el compensation lo be delermined later and measured by the benefits accruing from the service. This is a difficult melhod for use in planning studies. It requires contfaclual agree- ments Ihal will clearly d~sclose Ihs basis upon which Ihs conlingcncy fees will uifimately be compuled. However. th~s melhod would be unolhica[ in all cases where Ihe profes- sional planner acts or purports to act as an impartial expert rather than as an advocate. Ill. COST FACTORS. In calculaling lees. a planning consullanl must include the costs of operaling a professional olfice. In addition, there is the hms that must be spenl in arranging for consulting work and atlending professional meetings, as well as time for vacation and Illness, none of which ti;]iO Cai3 J;,o c,,'-;EIl-,,.jud Jcl d CJlUlll. ruHl~lmule, every consullant musl keep the nucleus of a competenl slalf m readiness lo serve at all limes Basically. lhe cosls of every job include: ia) Personnel-' Principal's lime. lechnical stall t~me (including Ihal of special,sis whelher on the slaff or under subcontracl) and clerical staff hms. (b) General Overhead Costs: Fringe banal,Is, vacations, illness, reqt, lelephone, equip- mont. insurance, taxes, professional memberships and conferences, reference library, anO olher usual expenses involved in Ihs operahon of a professional office. (c) Other Project Expense~: Such ilems as travel and subsistence, materials and sup- Flies. cr typical ,'-'.ubCOnfraclor ~;¢ms '~uch as renderings, models and the like. A Recommended Procedure For the Administration of the Request For Proposal (RFP) Process PREAMBLE. The federal government, some state and focal governments, as well as other public agencies select professional planning consultants through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. In order to assist public agencies using this process to obtain appropriate professional services and to help th~.m avoid pitfalls in its administration, the American Instilute of Planners (ALP) and American Suciely of Consulting Planners (ASCP) recommend fie procedures which follow. The RFP process is especially appropriate for use on those occasions where the pro- posed work prOgram is not clearly defined or where govemment~ and agencie.~ have little knowledge of those firms which would be best suited to perform the services. In such cases, the RFP becomes a good mechanism by which the public agency can turn to a professional planning consultant firm rather than to its own agency for the prepara- tion of a detailed work program. II is the purpose of these procedures, theretore, to sug- gest how the professional planning consullant firm shOuld be chosen and how public agencies can eliminate potential pitfalls of (a) not having sufflcfent information to evalu- ate the capabilily of planning consulting firms. (b) having inaccurate or misleading in- formation about firms, and (c) basing the selection of firms on factors other than those which reflect their ability to do the work. It should be made clear that. although there are different types of RFP's, this racom- mended procedure addresses stself only to the administration of RFP's which would nor- mally be responded to by planning cons,Jltant firms. USES AND MISUSES OF THE RFP. A Request for Proposal iS an administrative technique by which an agency seeks to clarify and describe a work program and to identify, professions! pfannin_a firms which might satisfactorily perform the services. When a study goes beyond the present state of the art and ~c,ence of planning, the RFP may be a particularly useful dewce. Not only can it aid an agency to shape a work program, but. when approaching new or unusually ddficult problems, it can also enable an agency tO request a single planning consulting firm to bring together an interdisci- plinaqf team which includes all the skills reQu;red for the undertaking of complex work programs. This focuses responsibility for completion of such a program in a single con* tractor rather than requiring the agency to let separate contracts for each portion of the work requiring the expertise of a separate discipline· In cases involving less innovatwe or complex work programs, it would be preferable for the agency staff to define the work program without resorting to the RFP process. In drawing up the RFP. care needs Io be exercised to assure that the selection process will be fairly administered. The RFP should, for example, identify any firm or firms which have been involved in the preparation of ail or any portion of the RFP; and such firms should be disquahfled from responding to the RFP, or Io that portion of it which they prepared Th~ firm which prepares an RFP is in an unfai;ty advantageods position to respond to it because of its inlimate knowledge of what the agency is seeking and will accept. However, nothing should preclude the firm which prepared an RFP from partici- pation, under separate conlract, in work supplementary to that covered by the RFP, or in any portion of the total RFP work program which iS specifically excluded from the response sought by 1he agency. The RFP process may serve the agency's interesls by encouraging consulting firms to compete with each other on lhe basis of relative creativity. Prior to retaining the services of a professional planning consulting firm, the agency should seek information which will allow it to judge all of the firm's relevant qualifications. The fundamental components of this information are: 1. Creativity: nature and calibre of ideas; innovation in approach to the problem; 2, Competence: capability shown by education and experience credentials and quali- fications; 3. Content: understanding of the problem at hand and a relative and effective approach to its solution; 4. Confidence: mutual prolessional trust and respect developed belween the agency and firm; and 5. Cost: Iowesl COsl commensurate with the quality of the work. Of Ihese five components, the only one which can be highlighted through competition for the agency's benefit is that of creativity. ^ principal virtue of the RFP process is pre- cisely the fact that it does put a premium on crealivity. Every attempt should be made during the selection prOCes~ to conceal the identify of lhe responding firms unlit after the two or three best work programs have been selected by the agency. To assure a fair assessment of a firm's qualifications, the agency's evalua- tom need to be freed of any irrelevant knowledqe about a firm except that v/nich is requested in the RFP. Throush the years, lhe Re(luest for Proposal procedure has been used in important ways. But its misuses should also be recognized. The RFP should NOT: be used as a method of screeninq profes=ional planning con- sultanls prior to multiple interviews II is unfair Io ask a large number of consulting firms. most of which will not even be chosen for interviews prior to one being selected by the agency, to spend valuable time and money responding to RFP's. Only those firms which are generally qualified to do the anlicipated work should be asked to respond to the RFP. This does not susgest prohibiting any consulting firm which wishes to respond to an RFP from doing so. However, it is a responsibility of the agency to advise consulting firms which failed to pass initial screening that they have not been chosen. The RFP should NOT: be used to obtain free study designs and work programs from planning consulting firms. This may be considered a fraudulent practice not Io be con- doned by either public agencies or private firms. An agency should determine in advance if if will or will not use its own staff to do the work. If the agency staff will be used and will require assistance in preparing a study desi0n and work program, the agency should let contract for thai limited purpose only. An agency may also wish to use a consulting firm to prepare its RFP's. In both cases, such services should be sought and paid for by Ihe agency in accordance wilh normal consultant selection procedures. In summary, lhe RFP is a useful process for lhe selection of consultant firms when the circumstances described here are present. But this process will not realize ils inherent potenlial if it: ~o Requires fee competition belween firms, 2. Requires inordinate amounts of uncompensaled time and expense in preparation; ~. Permits even the appearance of camouflaging a pre-determined selection of fl firm; Or, 4. Permits agency evaluators to kno~/ the identity of respondent firms prior to their final seleclion of the prospective contractor PREPARING AND EVALUATING THE RFP. The RFP procedure is intended to aid the public agency receive the best consulting planning services. The agency can lake steps which would greatly assure itself of the success of fhis technique, both before fhe RFP is sent out, and, again, after it receives replies from interested firms. Foremost in fhe preparation of ;he RFP is lhe agency's understanding of lhe program objectives. Responses will be capable ol evaluation only if the agency defines ils ob- jectivas thrmfgh a rigOrOUS process Of program analysis; cthc~;iC, c the replies may be irrelevant to Ihe agency's needs.* ff is of utmost impodance fo the agency as ~veff as the respondents fha! RFP authors be qualified by education and experience to prepare RFP's. From the agency's standpoint, the author needs to h&ve a clear understanding of the program objectives v~en defining the nature and scope of the RFP. From the respondent's standpoint, the more precisely defined the RFP. the more assurance the firm can have that ils response will be germane ta the needs of the agency. Assurances need fo be given thai fha procedures adopted for evaluating the responses are equitable and the seleclion l~'OceSS will be an open one. Few consulls~;:s will spend a greal deal of time preparing a response if the selection procedure is vague, or if the chances of getting the job seem to be minimal. Even the most innovative consultantc will either respond pedunctodly, if at all. unless the entire system for selection is clearly spelled gu; and assures fair competition. Any predetermined budgefa~ constraints need to be revealed in the RFP in order to assure thal all submissions will be comparable in terms of scale. If the evaluation process will rejecl a priori any proposal which exceeds certain budgelary limits, then the cre- alivily altd competence of the firm become largely irrelevant and its work in preparing ds response is wa~ed. Standardization within the RFP process can be especially helpful fo the agency and the respondents. Even though RFP's are issued by many agencies, a standard format for their RFP maximizes resdabili~y and comparability The meaning of words or phrases should not vary with the agency or author. Also, the process for issuing RFP's should be stsndardiz¢-J wilh respect to lhe offices whJch ~ssue lhem and the office which calves them from respondents Not only w~ll thes~e offices be able to administer the dis- tribution and receipt of RFP's more efficiently, but il would ease the burden on firms seeking RFP infotmahon if they could lurn to a central office for information. Sufficienl time needs to be allowed for the preparahon of responses, commensurate wdh ils expectations of the length and complexily of Ihe responses. I! is unfair to allow so little time Ihal respondents are forced unnecessarily inlo considerable oveflime work. As a rule of thumb, a minimum of 30 days should be permitted for response Io an RFP. bul, as the work requested by the RFP increases in complexity, the time permitted for responses should increase commensurately. Agencies may be on the rece~wng end of professionally "packaged" responses from firms which maintain a special staff for the purpose. Such responses may be Ictally un- representative of the capabdllies of the firm fo pedorm the contemplated work It is here that creativily m approaches to the problem needs to be weighed againsl lhe firm's giber credenl~als and quahfications, f, I I Both the age~, and the f;rm sh~u~, ~$[ the :,l,~lt who would hkeiy be available to wo~k on Ihe study. The qualiflcahons of each ind~viduat l~sted should be described so that an understanding as to his rote in the study can be gained. There is often a tendency on the pa~f of both parties to I~st most of their staff, regardless of the likelihood that these personnel will be assigned to the particular study or that they have any speciat experi- ence or knowledge to cont~bule. The use of the RFP can be successlul oniy ~f the agency spends sufficient staff t~me to evaluate carefully the responses. Casual rewew of repl~es can undermine the process, as well as assigning evaluators to the rewew who may lack the experience to judge the qual,ty of the ~deas expressed. It must be emphasized that the RFP, while a useful tech- nique for certain circumstances, w*,ll require considerable agency time and effort; and agencies should carefully evaluate if the same or a lesser amount of time ex?nded e'~ the trad~honal selection procedure might not produce better results. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE. Agencies are urged to define thoroughly the proposed work program and consider following the consultant selection procedure rec- ommended by AlP and ASCP before decdmg to use [he RFP process. Agencies issuing RFP's are urged to adopt the fOllOwing procedure, and members of AlP and ASCP are urged not to respond to RFP's which fall to substantially follow it: 1. Compile a list of firms considered to be oualifled to undertake the job at hand; 9- Solicit by individual lelter the interest of o."!~ firms which are deemed to be worthy o' ~".cfusior~. explaining the Job to be done and announcing the availabilily of an RFP; $o Establish a fixed budget for *.he job and a fixed fee for submission of a response; 4. Outline. in detail, the objectives of the study. Be specific regarding the procedural and administrative considerations involved, including the criteria for evaluation and how the idenlity of the responding firms will be concealed. 5. Acknowledge by mail the receipt of the RFP response from the consultant. 6° If the number of responses is extensive or if two or lhree firms seem equally qualified. schedule inlervJews with no more than three firms. 7. After making the final selection, negotiate a mutually safisfac*,ory fee for completion of the work. In order to assure complete fairness, the RFP process needs to guarantee that the identily of the responding firms is concealed from [he evaluators. The Statb of Massa- chuselts utilizes a procedure which il has found successful. It conceals the idenhty of the firms submiffing proposals by: · 1. requiring that the proposal be submitted m two parts: the first part dealing with con- tenl and creativity, and the second part dealing with an analysis of cost and wilh com- pelence; 9_ requmng that each part be submitled in ils own separate envelope free of any mark- ings as Io the identity of Ihe firm, bolh being contained in a third envelope, also free of such markings; $. permilling identification of the firm to occur only in the second part of the proposal; 4. prohibillng any Istlerbeads, disfinctwe stationery, or any other clues or allusions as to the idenlity of the firm in the first parl; S. reqmring proposals to be delivered by hand on an appointed day (selecting a person to receive them who would be a complele slrenqer to anyone presenting a proposal on behalf of his firm), or else by requiring submissions by mail only; 6. numbering each proposal as received, and locking ~t in a vault: 7. perm~lhng lhe reviewing and evaluahng slaff to read only Part I of each proposal, and by narrow;.w lhe choice down Io two or three firms; and 8o ~denhfy~ng ine imal~sts and interwewmg them pr~or to making lhe final selection. ,, Inlbrmat,'on p Service APRIL 1975 VOLUME 7 NUMBER 4 REPORT Procedures for retaining public works consultants THE REPORT AT A GLANCE This repot! presents a management approach to the selection of local government consultants. It examines the various procedures presently used in the selection of consultants; sug- gests some possible improvements: and discusses, step by step, the methods fl[at can be used tm !mplement such improvements. The findings of a re- cent American Public Wo[ks Associa. fion/lnstitute for Mm,icipal Engineer- ing nationwide survey sen'¢ as the basis of the report.' Most local governments have esl-.b. lished procedures for selecting their consullants. These procedures, ]low. eve[, differ g[eatly in both form affd scope, ranging from established tegisla. :ion to informal evaluation sessions. 'l'[leSe procedures have become par- ticulafly significant for managers and oil:ers in local government following the December 1974 tLS. District Cmnl ruling (subsequently under al}. peal I,) the Supreme Court)against Ihe National SocieJy of Professional Engi- necr~, which has attempted lo prevent competitive bidding for engineering ~rvJces. Allhough this report is primarily con- cemed wilh Ihe use of privale cm[sut- ranis, it also relates to life use of neighbomfg and other public agency staffs as an alternative method. Photo courtet. P ora merican la,ti:ute ol Architectt Il PROCEDURES FOR RETAINING PUBLIC WORKS CONSULTANTS Local governmen~ engnge public works consultants when responsible officials in the jurisdictions or agencie~ concerned recognize that they ~nnot accomplish the work involved with their own forces. From the managerial viewpoint, su~ d~io~ me ~y t~ wmlt ora rendition; I. That tile appropriate technical expertise is not avail. able in41ous~ 2. That the workload schedule involved could not be met with existing st~ff 3. That a specialized project needs to be undertaken for ~4~ich it would be unex. onomlc~l to employ present or even addition~l staff 4. That there is a need for an unbiased re~i~,v of work perform~l by In.house staff to determine whetber or not such work represents the l~st possible solution to whatever problem is being met 5; That there may be a need for the fresh approaches, new departures, and innovative thinking often avail. able from new and different sources of expertise. The present report therefore offers a critical review of exbting and potential managerial practices in this important and wnsitive area of 1o51 government. It begins with a brief Ntis report war prepared I,y the stall' o]' the .4merican Public Is~orkt Alleviation: Jerome Franklht, Settlor Research F. ugf. neet; attd lohn Rd Kerttetter. i)irector o]' Inl'ormathm. llte report was re~,lewed by the Ittstltttte flit Municipal I;ttgineer. hrg, a,d the ,4merh'ntt Consultittg F.~tgt, eer$ Council, but this does trot imply e~Mortemettt by eltlter orgattlzatlon. Suggested Cttatio,: American Public is'orks Attoclatio,. htstt. lute ]'or Municipal I;nghteerlng. Procedures for Retaining I'.bli¢ Works Consultants, Mattagement lttformathm fi;ex,ice Rvport. Vol. ? IVo. 4 (Washington. D.C.: international City Management Association. April 19 75 ~. man;~c~ial pmces~ involved - ~doi,titm -I the pr,,ject.~e appointment of a glectiou cmtnmttee, notification to rants, advertising, p~e~ualification, invitation, initial ~g, formal pre,hearten and submission of pro~als, fees. lhe fee oz to,al ~m~nutlon question, and final selection negotiation. Illustrative examples a~e Wen thmu~tout, with tile findin~ of a ~e~nt American Public Wo~ks As~ciation/ln. ~itute for Municipal Ex,needing nationwide survey ~e~ving the basis of Ihe report. ~te ~epnzt euds with nn os~rall ~nclu~ion. Most of rise d~ussion refers to pmcedu~cs ep~li~ble where ~sge and costly pzojects a~e involved. Small jobs. of ~ut~. ~equife less complex managet~! procedures approptiat~ to tbe level of funding involve. CONSULTANTS: WHO THEY ~E ~D WHAT THEY DO In the eadie~ yeazs of local government, it was fntmetly common practice fo~ a jmiMlction to seisin one connuhmg firm. Such a consultant, it was held. became familial with the l~al ~mmunit? and its ~lities and e~nomies. Wi~h the ~owth of lo~l govemm~L however, it became ne~ssa~ to meet a wide ~ange of special demands and services. Today. · etefme, it is not unusual to have many specialist consultant fi~ms available. In con~quen~, the adoption of ad~quate wocedutes fo~ the ~l~ion of consultants has becmno a go-in8 p~eoccupation of responsible 1o~I gnv~rnment man- a~ts. Most ~flsultants ate usually architects or e,gineers. As ~esult of recent re~onal, state, and federal tequir~ents and b~sistion, howler, the local government of the mid-l~ often al~ laces a need for tbe ~tvices of planners, ~wiroamentalists. sociolo~sts, fi~n~i adH~rs, and ~Jalist consultants. · :e actual ~rvices provided by consultz~:;~ co,'ets a wide range. A ~ntative list would include, but certainly not be limited to, activities in: preliminary and final desi~; biddi,g docum~tathm; inspection; supervision; testing; feasibility studies; ~mmunity development; pollution control; water te~urces; transit studies; ~gking; highways; industrial devei. opment; at,ports; public housing; ~wage treatment; utilities; mban and re~o~l planning; ~lid waste tteatmcnt and dtspo~l: flood control; computer services: environmental as~ssments; management procedures and controls; transporta- tion planning; waterways and ports; dtai~ge facilities; archi. ~ture: and traffic and structures. ~me advim~y ~rvices are. of cou~, available from non.profit m~ni~ations such as universities. ~tvice tie,s, governmental ~gonctes. and professional groups, lndc- ~fldent pdvate consulting fimzs, however, dominalc lJ~c ficld. and the evaluation pmcedmes, selection mechanisms and policies, methods of negotiating compenmtion, and so forth discussed in rite pre~nt ~epott largely addres~ thcm~elves toward the ~lection of independent private consulting BASIC ROLE8 I~ THE 8ELECTiO~ PROCESS Given a proliferation in the numbe~ of consultants, and ~men~ nnge of their practical ex~tti~, how can local ~tlYennneut elected ell'ici.ill and Ulall;l~',¢fs s¢¢'k wl~cn ~]ecting a ~nsultant~ ~at specilic ro~es can the differing individuals and groups involved in local government ~d it~ operation play undo; the~ conditions? Federal and state agencies may, of course, be able to p~ovide the equivalent of technical services them~lves: the Federal Ilighway Admin~tration and die Envitonme~tal ~ectioa Agen~ are obvious examples. State agencies which can offer assistance a~e the regulatory, civil ~vice, pla~ming, hgh~a~, healdh and police agencies. ~ere ag al~ state and local re.arch ogani~tions and foundations, taxpayer or~ni- ?atioas, munici~i and ~unty or~ni~tions, ~d numerous ~lleges and universities. In addition to direct ~sistan~, however, such agencies ~d organ~tions can often give advice - advice that will helpful to the Io~1 government manager - ~e~rding: 1. Obtaining funds for pgliminary studies 2. Suggesting qualified co~ultants (in Ohio, for ample, the ~partment of Administrative ~rvi~s will su~eg ~nsulting firms a~rding to t~ s~ of the particular project) 3. ~th~s of lmplem~tion. ~e~ bodies ~n alto supply information through ~r~, rep0m, ~rlodicais, bulletin~ and n~slelter~. Informa. lion may aim be dimminated at heelings and training work.eps. Related sourcfl of as~gtan~ will include business, labor, and community lzaders; citrons' ad~so~ groups; busine~ exe~ltves on loan; and, not least, reports from other agencie~ or levels of government who ~v~ ~fully gapplzd with similar problems. In spite of sug]l assistant, the selection of an independent privat~ ~nsulting ~rm is frequently ne~s~y. ~at principles ~e involved? Althou~ diff~gnt ~leclion committees will cloarly ~ needed for proje~s of yawing ~i~ and complexity, experi~ meres Io sho~ that all of a jurisdiction'~ of~cer~ - elected, administrative, and lecimical - may have roles to play in the selection pmce~. The~e roles are dependent on ~gll factors as local responsibility, tradilion, le~l audlo~ily, and professional guidelines, in mo~t ju~isdic. lions, elected omc~ls ~111 u~ually designate eifller the adminis. lralor, ptlblic works officer, or a seleclion conuniltee to dloom th~ consultant. Tllis is done to not only avoid having to make a technical decision, but al~ to minimi~ lire political ~ertones which could arise. Of cousin, the final decision ultimately made by lllz elected body, which has Iht option of at.piing or rejecting a suggestion or recommendation. ~e makeup of the ~lection co~nmtttee depends upon each jutisdiction~ ~me committees will tuclude only jutisdic. tionai effects and technicians: others will include "oulside" ~echnicians and laymen; and ~me will include a mixture of botl~ groups. gVrttten pr~cedure~ are also dependent upon fl~e particular juti~icttons. Florida, for example, h~ now adopted a Cousal. tarts C0mpetttl~e Negotiation Act (Appendix A) which applies to all gontragts. Tho~ jurisdictions who~ contracts are estimated to exceed $25,000 may receive assistance in preparation and procedures at cost, from either the Florida l~partment of Transportation or its Department of Genera. Fro,ti ch-ice nz:~y als~ depend ui~on past perfoml:snce cons~llants. 'l'hi~ may ~tve as a merit award for ~'";~:'. Many communities desire {o continue with kno~v~ firms or individuals without formalitie~ of a ~lection ptoces., pa~tic~latly o~ small conttacls. On the other hand. sorer wo~ld feel that such a situat~n might invite d~arges favoritism, undue perpetuation of p~ug~eugnt patterns, other nndemoc~alic praclices. Anolher significan~ factor to be considered is ti~e location; of the firm within or will,out the jurisdiction conce~neU. political factors may become involved, in any event, it woult~ be ta~e -- in tl;e ca~ of a choice belween two fin~ist~ - not to ~ve the contract awarded to the "1o~I" firm~. llaviag noted the~ general factors, it is no~ possible to take a step.by-step look at the actual procedures involved ~etaining public works consultants. RDOPTION OF PROJEgT ~en a pr~0ect statement is to be given to a consulting firm. appears good managerial practice to include: 1. A de~iption of the workand its objectives 2. ~e nature of specific tas~ and services to be accomplished 3. The type and amount of assgtanc~ to be ~ven by the 4. A ~equited time hame $. ~y financial conditions or limitations. Other pre~ualification constraints - such as a preference for local fi.ns, si~ of the firm. and past work experience with the Jurisdiction - should aim be included ii~ the mt~ment. ~PPOI~T~E~T O~ TH~ BEL~gTIO~ gO~Ml~ ~election committees can consist of various combinations of jurisdictional elected officers, technical administrators, finan- cial advi~rs, and ap~inted citizens. The makeup can even vary according to tho estimated ~t ~f tll~ project and/or the ~ttmatod fee of the consultant. Accordiug to the APWA]IMI~ nationwide surv~,, Tacoma, IVashington's miuimum fee requiting the appoiatntent of a ~lection committee is $3,000, while $5.~0 is applicable in ! lennepin Colmty, Minnesota, IVicllita. Kansas, Newport Beach and San ~oaquin Couuty, California and G~a,d gapids. Michigan. Ventura County. California ha~ a minimum et $6,500; while $ IO.O00 is sl~cifled in l'alo Alto, San J~so and gan Diego County, Calif,,mia and ~ackson C,;unty. h~issouti. For amotmls below the miuimums, in'Wichita, the oily man;leer is authorized to select the con:~ult;ult based .l~on st;~ff recommendations, lu San Jog, the director of ptd~lic works makes the recommeudali,~ns, and itl San Diego G~zmty, the public ~otks admi.islrato~ eau let the contract. IVhe~e this patteru of choice is prevalent, the selection Is ~metimes ba~d on rotation of locally pre~iuali~ed firms, The selection committee makeup may further depend upon size ~r "potenli:~lily" of the project, For exa.;ple, thi~ varies i~ S;tn Jose li,~ contracts ftotu S lo.e00 to $50.000. fi~r tllose .vef $50.000. In the fi,truer, the "tevie~ board" cousists of the depnty disector of public works. ~he d/vision cng?et of the division letting the contract, and one otller divisi,m engiucer. For li~e !a!tcr, a five-member board is u~d - ~ a public works official (preferably from outside Santa Ciasa ~.ff Connty); a representative of a consulting firm of the same discipline as those being intcndewed; the director of public works (or the deputy); one other city official; and thc division engineer of the division letting the contract. The consultant oas the review board is recommended by the professional societies. In Wichita, the selection committee consists of the cit~ manager, the director of administration, director of public works;director of law, and the budget officer. In projects of "wide public Interest," however, lite Board of City Cmnmis- sioners acts as the selection committee. This also is policy in Palo Alto, California for "high community impact" projects. For "controversial" projects, ltalifax, Nova Scotia, in addition to 3 staff members, appoints an additional member from an outside public agency. In Ese. ondido, California the committee ' consists of tlw city~managar or the appointee, the director of public works, city engineer, director of communily develop- mc.at, and a member of tire city council. The Dads County. Florida, manager appoitfls the cons- mittee, which consists of three registered professionals in the field of endeavor or practice involved, al! of whom shall be employed by the county, but in Oak Ridge, Tennessee lite city · manager appoints a selection committee of 5 professional citizens with 3 city staff serving ex-officio. In Pensacola. Flortda it consists of the project director, city engineer, and director of transportation. In Bloomington, Minnesota, the city manager appoints the deputy city manager, the utility supewisor, tile director of administration, the director of d~v¢lopment, and the city engineer. In Dayton, Ohio thc board of review consists of tile director of finance, director of law, and tile assJslant city manager. This board is an intermediary between the leclmical dgparlment h~ad and the ~ity manager and commission. Phoenix, Arizona has a committee composed of tine contracts administrator, assistant city engineer, deputy city design engineer, and rite project engineer from the section Involved. NOTIFICATION TO CONSULTANTS Jumdtctions have vanons methods o1' notifying consultants they are desirous of their servicca. For smalle~ contracts, the jurisdictions may utilize a list of consultants who have already performed similar work satisfactorily. These are usually local firms, and can be recommended by lite selection committee. A rotational plan is most common, but in Riverside, California, favorable consideration is given to firms not having prior experience with the city in an effort to ~mre work equally. 'Ibis is lite practice also in Fresno, California. For larger contracts, solicitation can be through mass advertising, professional journals, individual contact, and from pre.qualification lists. ADVERTISING The State of Florida req :ires "all jurisdictions (each agency) to publicly announce in a uniform and consistent manner on each occasion when professional services are required." Advertising is also used when highly specialized services are not locally or regionally available. Media used ate local and nationally circulated newspapers, state and national teclmical masazines, and professional society journals. .PRE-QUALIFICATION Fin:ida climes aqd co.nties, nod many of life larger cities counties elsewhere, including Milwaukee, Los Angeles. nix. and ~n Diego. compile profes~kmal zesumcs and que~ tionnait~ to ptodnce lisls of pre-qualified consullants, both as to size and s~c~lty. Othe~ smalleLjmisdictions eAp~ndix utilize a variety of qu~tJonnaire forms, with m~t referring to · e fotlo~g items: I. Fi~m name, address, telephone numbers 2. Year established and former firm names 3. Types of services for which il is qualified 4. Names of principals of the firm and states in ~hich they are registered 5. Names of key personnel, with experience of each and length of time in the orgafiizagon 6. Number of staffavailable for assignment 7. Outside consultants and associates usually retained 8. List of completed projects on which the firm was principal engineer 9. Current projects underway and estimated cost of each I 0. Data-gathering methods 1 I. Evaluation techniques. This pre-qualification helps save time in the initial solicitation of firms, as consultants can be divided into specialty and technical groupings, showing financial responsi- bility, personnel size availability, and information as to past performance. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago utilizes consuigants' resumes to divide firms into thre~ consuhaut tee categories: a) less than S50.000; b) $50.000 t6 S200.000; and c) over S200'000. It also requests info,nation regarding suspension or revocation of professional licenses of key members, and legal actions or suits for over $5,000 during the pre,ions 10-year period. These lists may or may not be kept confidential, accordi,g to local policy. Usually, to remain effective, the lists a~e updated eve.n/year or two. INVITATION Consulting firms may also be notified by direct invitation based on rotatiou, reputation, location, and referral by another firm. INITIAL SCREENING ~ The selection commiltee at this point has tile responsibility of narrowing llre list -- or short-listing .. lo lire normal three to five finns which will be selected to stflunit detailed prop,)sals. F~esno, California feqni~es a minimum of three fiuns for fees varying from $20.000 to $50,000, and a minimum of five firms for over $50.0~. The basic areas to be explored are as follows: 1, Specialized experience in tile type of wink tequned 2, Record of the firm in accomplishing work on other projects in lite required thnc 3. Geographic location of qualified firms relative to tlw project location · 4. Quality of work previously performed by the firm fo'}'" the agency 5. Evidence of any attempt to evade responsibility for evident design failures 6. Recent experience showing accuracy of cost estimates 7. Community relations including evidence of ~ensitivity In citizen concerns - environment, ecology, etc. 8. Current workload in local office 9. Largest job handled by the firm from its inception, and during the past five years IO. Oualifications and competence of key persmmel · 11. Relations with previous clients. llalifax. Nova Scotia rates each factor on a basis of I. 2, 3 where each succeeding figure ha~ a higher measure of preference. For those factors which cannot be rated on this basis, measure of preference will' be signified by 0 to I indicating acceptable or unacceptable. A similar procedure is followed in the Port of Portland, Oregon (Appendix C). In order to remlve any questions concerning the general operations of the consuhanl, the selection committee should not hesitate to ~istt the consultant's office, End to interview the principals and key staff. Much insight can thus be gained as to future working relations. Contacts can also be made with previous clients of the firm who have undertaken similar work. With the selection committee's initial screening com- pleted, the three to five firms chosen should be notified in writing, with the delta'Is for presentation and submission of their respective formaf proposals. Similarly, the firms which were not successful should be thanked, in writing, for the efforts they made. FORMAL PRESENTATION AND SUSMLSSION OF PROPOSALS · Each of the firms selected for final screening should be given the opportunity of having a specified time and location for making its formal presentation. Adequate time should be allowed to enable each firm to become familiar with the details of the project. If necessary, site visits should be scheduled, and briefings by agency staff arranged. The mole information given to the comultant, the better Ids understand- ing of the project - which, in turn, provides him wid~ a method of approach for the ~olution of tide problem. Concurrent with the proposars preparation, the selection committee should make an evaluation of the firms with regard to Ibc following typical items concerning prior projects: 1. Addenda issued to prospective contractors during the bidding process 2. The type of change orders i~sued during construction, and their effect on the project 3. Award price versus tide engineer's estimate 4. Final constru~:tion costs compared with award price 5. Basis and amount of compensation received for compar. able services provided other clients on similar projects 6. Post-construction problems in startup and operation, and additional costs required to place the facility in operation, as a percentage of constrnctiun cost 7. Changes in scope, services, and compensation daring the life of the consultants' a~eement with previous clients 8. Attention given to the project during construction and after the final payment to the consultant in the event of failures or process problems 9. Possible conflicts of interest including full disclosure by the consultant of his othe~ clients in the area 10. Degree of responsibility accepted by the con~uhant for the tecl,nical aspects of the project (some cities hold the public works director or city engineer responsible} Il. Application to previous projects of clear engineering analysis and judgment of on-site conditio-.;, absence of handbook or "cookbook" engineerhtg applications; amo~,t of original engineering think;ns applied to the projec! 12. Amount of time and attention the principals of the firm will apply to the project, and their availability to their client 13. llow well the firm rectifies its errors, including the assumption of personal financial responsibility to correct 14. Ilistoty of key personnel turnover in the firm 15. Ilow well the consultant met time schedules on previous projects. If the consultant has had no prior working experience with the agency, the selection committee should not hesitate to verify his or her statements with other agencies. The Port of Portland. O~egon maintains an ev?-h,ation of all past projects for 3 phases - end of the design period, end of the constmcti,m period, and a year later. These evaluations consider adherence to the time .schedule, costs, staff perfor- mance, working relationships, and defects. Final review rat- lags. for future reference, are also made by St. Paul, Minnesota. Tire prime factors to be rated in the final screening are the consultant's: I. Management capabilities 2. Approach to the problem 3. Understanding of lite agency's objectives 4. Proposed work schedule 5. Staff to be assigned 6. Fee, when specifically requested. Other items of general consideration are: 1. Knowledge of local situation 2. Ability to communicate 3. Confidence factor 4. P~esentation and attitude. in Brooklyn Park. Minnesota the selection commillce visited water treatment plants designed by each of four finalists, visited each of their offices, and then sated each as to strong and weak points in order to reach a decision. llalifax. Nova Scotia uses the following detailed criteria: The Proposal 1. A~e the propose, scope, general plan. methodology and lype of result anticipated clearly defined by the consultanl? 2. Is the conceptual framework adopted by the consul. rant appropriate to the project? 3. Does lite proposal meet the terms of reference and tide intended scope of the project? 4. Ilas the firm expanded on the term~ of reference'~ If applicable, what degree of originalily is present m ' lite proposal? 6. ILas the firm defined the parameters of ~e project with sufficient precision? 1~ the firm's preliminary work plan ~{i~factory? 8. I~ the {oral project m~agement adeqna{ely defined? 9. Are the project ~gments propedy intetlelaled and weighted relative to one another? ~g and ~h~uling I. ~ the timing and scheduling proposed by the firm coincide with tile agency's reqnirements? 2. How is the ~heduling of the work presented? 3.Is it the most apptopr~te approach to the project~ 4.Is the timing realisticT 5.Ilas the firm substantiated the schedule il proposes7 6. ~ the firm propo~d a melhod of ~ntrol and renew of the timing and ~heduling? ~nsM~nt - Agm~ Rebtiomhip 1. ~s the firm planned br the ~bmi~ion of pr~ess reports ~d interim briefings? 2. Is the propo~d content of progre~ te~rts in accordan~ with the requirements of the agencyT (monthly statement of incurred ~s~, ~mmitments, revi~d ~st e~timates, etc.) 3. ~at de~ee of direct ~ul~nt-agen~ liaison proposed? FEES U~. Public ~w 92-582, approved Oclober 27, 1972, Title IX - Selection of Architects and Engineers - Sec. 902 declares ~e poli~ of the Federal Go~erument to be "to negotiate ~ntracB for architectural and enDneering ~[vic~ on the basis of demenstrated competence and q~lification for the ly~ of profe~ional ~r~s required and at fair and re,enable prices" Sec. 9~ direcB the agency h~d to negotiate a coutract with the hi,est qualified firm ... at compensation ~ich the agen~ head dete~iue$ is fair and reasonable to the Itowcve~, in December, 1974, U~. District Corot ~ulin8 found "the ban on competitive bJddin8 by professional ~nee~s'* tlle~l, as ~nstJtulJnff p~i~-fixin8 ~e Shemtan Anli-T~ust Act. ~te National Society sional ~nglneers (NSP~), defendnnl fn the suit, is now (April, 1975) appealing the decision to the U~. Supreme Cou~t. ~e NSP~ ~odc of ~i~ st~ses that the choi~ engineer should be b3~d on technical com~lcn~e, general background, and experience -- with the client choosing the firm which, in the forme~'s opinion, is the ntisfactotily perform thc a~igned task. The Al'WA Code is ~milar but it acknowledges the need to consider the cost of the ~tvtces to be provided when a consultant ts retained. APWA's Code of Ethic$ "recognizes that it is not in thc public interest for officials of public agencies to glcct and retain ptofe~io~l engineering gtvices on the basis of price aloue ~d that consideration must al~ be given to experience, ~¢hnical expcrtig, availability, and other qualificatiom." While NSPE is confident that its appeal will be successful. an adverse ruling could lead some public agencies to give more wei~t to the consultmt's fee than to his or her qualifications. ~his may, in Ivrn. result in the adoption el new safeguards and procedures. Aheady, tile General Services ((;SA) is planning 1o require more details of a consultant, experience and performance on specific projects. GSA that there will be a trend towards contracls being awaMed on fidly developed project proposals, including life cycle costs. While price would be a factor, detailed technical proposal~ ~vould make lite estimated fee of the consultant a relatively minor factor in tile total cost of the project. At prc~nt, most agencies, consistent with conventional practice, do not discuss fce~ during the final selection prneess. Washington County, Maryland. however, states "that for all fees over $1D00, the amount shall be of prime copsidetation in selection.*' San Joaquin County, California. Addison. lllinoi~ and Kearny, New Jersey require a cost statement to be submitted with the proposal. Lakewood. Colmado req~tests a cost statement, but it is submitted separately. This is also the procedure followed in Waterloo. Ontario. The purpose of the fee inclusion is for the selection committee to be able to determine if the finalist's fee is witlml the budget allocation for the project, prior to final nego- tiation. £EE OR TOTAL COMPENSATION This amount uormally includes technical payroll, administra- tive help, clerical expense, capital costs, office equipment rent, taxes, insurance, utilities, report preparation, readiness t~; $e~ve. overhead, and profit. It may be calculated by the following various methods: I. Lump sum or fixed fee 2. Cost per unit 3. Per diem or houdy basis 4. Salary cost times a multiplier 5. Cost plus a determined fixed payment 6. Percentage ofconstructiofl cost ° 7. Retainer fees, annual or otherwise. The fee is normally governed by the complexity of th, project and the completeness of services required. FINAL SELE(~TION AND NE6OTIATIO~ Upon reaching a decision, tile selection committee shonL; present a documented report (minutes, methods, and ralini:.~ to the agency's governing body. 'Ibis report should summari/. all the activities and decisions made in prior meetings, and th, recmumendations as to the consultant selected. In most jurisdictions, lite governing body will accept tin report, and request the appropriate admiuistrative ofhcc~ usually the city manager or tile director of ptiblic wolks -- proceed with final negotiations. In Milwaukee. however, the commissioner of public works becomes ti,. contracting officer after the Council adopts an authorixi~: resolution. There can be occasions when the selection colnm,: t~e's recommendation will be rejected, but this happens rate occasions, and is most unlikely if the presentation h.~ been carefully prepared and is well documented. 'the first-choice firm then is a~ked to enter i' fUL negotiations. At this time, both patties define tl?e"exa. conditions of tile contracl4Cope, work plan and .~hcdnle. /.-oersonnel, c, ms. fee, and melhod s~f payment. Upon c,)mple- m of ne~tio~, the fm~i cent:act is p~nled to the jut~di~inn's approp~lt as~l~s~tit~es for signalure. If, how~, after a specified time, negotiations with the tim choi~ ~n~Itanl fail. they should ~ fm~lly broken off ~d b~un with the next hight ruled firm. in no ~ should ~mth~ negol~ons on thB job be ~lered"into 'with the fi~il~hoi~ firm. Not~lly fe~ are not d~d prim 1o final ~gol~lion but ihk qu~lion beco~s m~t in lh~ ca~s ~ete fm mu~ be included as puff of lhe propo~l. U~n for~i~1ion of the ~ntta~, ~e unsu~ssful firms ~ould be notified ~ writing, with the I~n~ of the jm~ktion, for ~ t~e, mon~, md effort exp~d~. ~GLU$10N .~at geneeal ~ndusions, ~ful to lho~ ~th ~nagement ~bili~ies in Io~ government, ~n be drawn in addition to ~he d~afled a~lysis pre~nted ~ ~k repd~? ~e following ~tnB ~em espec~y pett~t: · Pto~ut~ for the ~l~ion of 1~ ~vemment cons.hams appear to have heconte incre.'sni.gly fi,tmal. At tile .,.~me time. rellectillg a trend ill l~c-"l gcsvemrnent generally, they appear to have become re.re resp~msive to the public demand for more openness in government. · Because of reccnl natio~nwide publicity concerning selection procedures and policies, there is a trend at all levels of government to adopt detailed procedures or gnideliqes. · Traditionally, experience and economy of design were tile prime factors in selecting a consultant. Today, in addition, selection bodies are also consider- ing lhe consultant's sensitivity to other tactors, such as the environment; social trends; and historic, regional, and cultural int.'rests. · Selection bodies increasingly include citizen members -- both technical and non.technical - in addition to professional agency staff. · Openness in communicating the methods and reason. lng for choosing a consultant is necessary lo maintain tile credibility of tile selection process, as welt as being sound managerial p~;actice. Appendix A b~/'I~OP~JS OF FLORID~ LAW o Below is a sumnraty of the steps set forth in Thc Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (llouse Bill 309)as being necessary Io secure professional services. Step I - Public Announcement of tho project. Re Set forth in an appropriate media a general descrip- tion of the wink to be done and services to be rendered. B. Send letters to firms who have requested notification. Step 2 - Pre-Qualif'gation and Certification of Firms as Qualified to Perform. A. Study each fl;m's qualification data already on file. B. Study new applications setting forth flints' qualifies. tigris. C. After study in A and B certify firms as qualified after study. -"e~.,ep 3 - Selection of Certified Qualified Firms. A. S~reen list of Certified Qualified Fhms. Evaluate discussions and presentations by interested Certified Ot,alified Firms. Selection of .t or more Certified Qualified Films. Establish tile older of preference of firms based on qu:difications. F. stablishment of preference precedes, and is essential to, step 4. Step 4 - Negotiation of Professional Service Contracts. Ao Commence definite contract negotiations with tile top Certified Onalified Firm determined by Step 3. C. Above. la Contract negotiations: 1. Establish detailed and full scope of services to be snpplied. 2. Determine and negotiate co,.pensation that is fair. competitive and reasonable. 3. Conclude contract if negotiations ale successful. If not, terminate negotiations and go to Step 4. B. below. After negotiations are terminated with Firm nmnber I. commence negotiations with 2nd most qualified firm, and repeat step 4. A. I. and Step 4. A. 2., above. if successful wilh No. 2 firm. to.elude contract. If not. terminate negotiations with firm fi.tuber 2 and proceed with £~m number 3 in tl~ manner set forth above. ~lditional ConsMe~ations (IJ Truth in negotiation ¢lau~ is required, if prof~ional I'r,,ced,.~ f,n Kcl~im~g l'~ldic ~,mks C-;md;aM, ! 7 of ~25~. (4) C~t~a~ ~ti~ p~r to Jo~ I. I~. a~e not ~ff~. A& E OUALIFICATIOM DATA (!) Name of Fflrm: (2) Addr~s: Firm Spexdalty:, : Telephone _ (4) Branc.~ Office (Location); ($) Personnel Jn Home Offi~ (H.O.) and Branch Offic~ (B.o.): fa) Architects IIX). (b} Civil Efl~inet~s ILO. (c) SanitaryEflgMeers ILO. '" (d) Struclural £ngJflcefJ IIX). li.O. (e} Mechanical En~.¢ers ILO. ~ , _ B.O. (~} T~affic ~fl~a ILO. B.O. (h} ~fld~ArchJ~U ILO. ,. , , fi) Desirers ILO. B.O. (k) D;afa~n ILO. B.O. (I) Su~ Parties ILO. B.O. (m) O~r S~fialti~ (~ fnst~uctfons, sheet number 4) (6) Experience Capabilities: (I) CIVIL ENGINEERING: fa) 'liJghwoy I~'sf~n (b) Street Design (c) I lydrfulfcs & IlydroloiG' (d) Drainage D~sign (e) Storm ~alfla~e (0 Site ~velop~m l~si~ (g) Site Grading & ~aifla~ [h) Air~l (i) E~tlh 8 R~k Fill D~ Othe~ (S~ctfy} . (Il) S'I'RUCTURAL ENGINEERING: (a) Foundations (b) Simple Structures (c) B,dge~ (d) Floral Control Stxu~u~ (c) ~aifla~ Stfuclu~es Othff fS~fy) (1II) SANITARY ENGINEERING: fa) Water Treatment Supply (b) Sewage Trcatfr~flt (c) ~did Wa. lc D~posal (0 Other (S~fy) PLANNING: (~) Regi,mal Flarming (fl) Urban {'{anfliflg (d) Water Rc~our~ Haflfliflg (e} Master JqaflnJn~ SHe I%.~.g (h) I:c~ib~i/y Stud/es (i) Other (S~ify) ARCI Il I I!CTURAL DF. SIGN; (a) Building Alterations& Additions lb) Public B, ildi,g~ ¢c) Office II,ildifll~ rd) Veh~le Maintc,ance liuildm~ ll,,.siflg (Mulfi. Famdy) (g) Recreamma{ J:aciJifics ih) I.md~ Afchileclure ~ t¥1J O/ID FA~T'RICAL £NGINEERING: (;0 land gb) f~mstruction Sfakcout (a) Com~~ (el Comtmcfion gb~ i~.g fO) Aer~l ~ot~aphy & Off~ 9~dJ~ (fi R~I Estate Appraisale (VIIi) ENVI~NMfi~AL: (7) Additional ~ffic~ that can be a~ with your o~n~tion (~ Instructi~s): (all (IX) ,~JIL5 & MAT£RIAL~ EKGINF.,ERING; (8) Dzte Prelate4: (9) (SJBnatme) Firm $1~-'iahy - i~, ArrJlim:lural, Mecl~nical. P~son~J - Stage number of ~r~l in ~n~ny offi~ ml~d in s~xific as~ of work. item tm) ~lh~ ~ltirt'. atla~ a I~t indi~fJng fh~ a~itional ~rv~ tl~l can be Line (6); £xperi~nce Capabgi~s - Code as follows: for rp~ckalty for some expe~ience (0) ~ut li.n is urlqualificd LJne (7): Additimlal Setvic~ - List tile name of the fit'mfs) and tile additional selvice that can be provided. Aflach a ~parate ~ & i; Qualifieatton Data ~heet fur each fi.fl listed. (9): Sitmat,.e F,)fm to be ~siF.,ncd :)y Of'ricer of Principal of Firm APl~ndi~ C ~s~ CONSULTANT SELECTIOIq FORM [Po~ o~ Pc~land, Ore,on! [~ea~ score the consulting firm on a scale fwm Iow/to l]tg~ you feel his Ferf(,rmancc ;ares on the following list of itcm~. Pr~j~t: N~me of Film: Your Name: I 2 .t 4 $ Scot,' 1, llackgmund and ex~denc¢ of firm*s staff members who would ~ ~si~ed to the job. 2. Si~ of job. Ava~b~tty 4, ~lity of fi~m (~re hi~ I~) Ex~r~ce of s~ff members who wo~d he ~i~ed to the job in a ~ld cl~ly rebt~ to ~e job. 6. ~i~y to j~fify and ~11 td~. 7. Ablllly of ~sMtant to su~ly ~! of ~e ~jor n~ ~o ~form ~g work. 8. Appwa~h ~ ~hg a~mpl~h~ng of a pmj~ Subto~ 9. A~ut~w of ghe firm In ~fl~fln8 ti~ requirement. 10. A~r~W of firm tn ~tt~mt~ng grot requirements. To~ Note: Qu~flo~ 9 ~d 10 ~r~n to ~ who ~ve previously doue work for the MEMORANDUM To Kevln Waring, Director Div. of Community Planning FROM'Glen Svendsen . Senior Planner State of Alaska D/~]E'July I/l, 1976 FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO: suB~°~'RFP drafting $ review of~ ~ltant proposals Recent experience wlth the Fort Yukon project has pointed up Ute need for an outtine or model local agencies can use in preparing a request for proposals. Once consultant proposals are received, the communities also need technical assistance In analyzing those proposals. This memo addresses both these needs. Any comments or recommendaUons on the processes described are welcome. The request for proposals (RFP) sent out by the communities that we work with is often their first contact with a planning consultant. I think the RFP should give as accurate a picture of the community's needs and requirements es possible, to ensure both a mutual comprehension of the project between the consultant and the community and tight adminlstraUve control over the project. In order to achieve these goals, Just what should an RFP Include! The RFP out- line, which follows, gives a fair IndlcaUon of the types of Information which should be given. RFP_ FORMAT An Introductory paragraph which Identifies the community, states the type of project, the desire to use consultant services, a re- quest or solicitation of proposals, and a statement that excludes the community from any obligation to pay for the costs Incurred by the consultant In making the proposal. Background Information on the need for the project and the specific problems te be addressed. Detailed scope-of-services, which should Include as much specific Information on graphics, method elr performance, work eleme, nts, and methodology, etc. ns possible. The scope-of-services in the original contract with the Department usually provides the basic Information for points 2 S 3. Publication of Documents - this section should state the acknow- ledgement required, the total number etr copies, and the responsi- bility of the consultant to-provide t'or publlcaUon. Kevln Warh~9 -:2- Time-Frame and Project Budget should clearly lay out these key parameters. Specifying the approximate amount of funds available, type of funds [cash - vs - In-kind] and any local desire to pro- vide in-kind services will save the consultant a good deal of un- certainty in drafting the proposals. The community, In turn, gains as much competitive advantage from giving an exact price as from glvlng the consultants only a mbaliparkW figure, and saves some administrative time. The only consideration on time-frame Is simply to allow some leeway at the end of the project for de- lays in printing, final review, and major changes. A May dead- line for projects which must be completed by the end of e .June 30 fiscal year has worked fairly well [especially when there Is some additional unofficial leeway in the .June 30 deadline wlU~ HUD]. An early .~iay deadline also provides the Division with time to com- plete admlnistraUva review, payments and close-out by June 30. Other stipulations change from community to community, de-- pending on their specific concerns. Stipulations to be considered include: requirements for general public presentations pr~,~entatlons to the council at key points such as finalizing goals and objectives, development of alternatives, completion of the draft, and final submittal. Specification of review of the final draft by the community and the Department. Material is to be presented in a form that Is usable by the local community and easily up- dated. The community can also Indicate to the consulta~lt some of the points that will be considered in evaluating the proposals, but that are difficult to require as stipulations. This would cover such things as the time to be spent In the community, types of local Involvement, the consulting firm's capability and experience in local pla.nning projects, Alaska experience, _ . The ~adllne of submltUng proposals should be stated, well as ~e tenmtlvo date on which a contract decision will be ~de. This letter point enables the consultant to forecast stuff time in the community and specify time periods In the pro~sal. Kevln Warlng -3- · July I~, 1976 So much for the RFP process. Now comes the more difficult task - evaluating the pro- posals and choosing a consultant. 'Fha ICMA, report entitled Procedures for Retaining Public Works Consultants, (Management Informatlon Services Report, Volume 7, Number 4, April 1975) provides a very useful analysis, tlowever, the report Is alined at large scale public works projects. Adopting the pointers in thai. report to our planning grant experience suggest a fairly unsophisticated two-stage review process. Ev, ,a, I,ua. t!ng Proposals_ A two stage process seems to occur In practice, although not sharply or formally defined. 'fha first phase narrows down the choice among consultants through tho evaluaUon of their proposals. A fairly straightforward method of conducting this Initial evaluation Is through the construction of a matrix based upon those factors Important for the completion of the project, and Important to the community it- self. The ordlnar/t~mlght Include such components as the total cost specified by the firm, their time-frame, size and expertise, planning experience, local and Alaskan experience, the time to be spent in the community's existing pro- Jects, use of local services or people, general methodology, degree of detail specified in the work program, and so on. Specific Information or figures should be used In filling out the matrix whenever possible; thus, figures for cost, time- frame, time in community and so on should appear in the matrix. Other qualitative terms (I.e., adequate, realistic, substantial, etc.) liberally used In the non- quantified entries wlll avoid the necessity of designing an entire weighting system and still produce results for an evaluation of this complexity. During this Intlal evaluation, past reports should be reviewed, as well as any other background data. Clarification or further Information can be requested from the firms. Once the evaluation matrix is completed, the Various firms can be ranked or ordered on their relative merits. Some firms may be dismissed outright due to cost, per- formance, or so'ne other factors. The ranking of others may, to some extent, depend upon trade-offs withln subject areas - such as time-In-community - vs - ' past performance or expertise. Once the outstanding or potentially acceptable firms have been IIRed out, the ' second ev.aluatlve stage appears. (If one firm Is apparently far superior to the rest, this may not occur.) The consultants remaining are probably fairly close In their proposals, or hnve presented strong proposals that need additional clarification or background. The community m~ny. contact these firms, to re- quest more informatlon, to express an Interest In personal presentations, or to contact previous clients. .. '.,.. Kevln Wering July I~, 197G A personal presentation provides the community a chance to meet the project director and (perhaps) team members. There have been instances in which the community felt the consultant did not understand the local situation or problems, and simply did not mfltm as well as another firm. '1~ should be noted that these additional data requests, Interviews, and so on may not occur. In fact, there may be no distinct eseconda phase at all. What Is characteristic of this phase of the evaluation process Is the reliance on sub- Jective or intuitive aspects of the firms~ presentations to augment the slightly moro formal analysis. GLS/msd · · · · · · · · · · · · II GENERAL FuND CODE NAME BUDGET 30000 CDNTRI~ FROM FUND GAL 250,000 31110 REAL CURRENT $,162,497 31111 REAL PRIOR 49,468 31112 PERSONAL CURRENT SgG,flg9 31113 PERSONAL PRIOR 1,000 31114 OIL CURRENT I01,487 31130 SALES TAX 100fl8,000 31140 FRANCHISE TAX - KUSCO 12,000 32221 LIC · PERMITS - SLOG IS,O00 32222 LIC PERMITS - TAXl 200 32223 LlC ~ 600 PERM -- ANIMALS 32224 LIC · PERMITS - OTHER 34341 STATE GRANT o LIBRARY 280 34342 sTATE GRANT - LIGHTS 4,300 34344 STATE GRANT - HIMAY 34350 STATE REYENUE SNARING &63,300 34351 BUS LICENSE REVENUE 130,000 34352 FISH TAx REvENuE 350000 34353 LIQUOR LICENSE REV 13,600 34354 ELECTRIC COOP REVENUE 24,000 750 34355 GAMING DEvICEs REV 36411 CB##ISS -'DEFT OF REV 25,000 36421 FINGERPRINT PEGS 300 36440 EXCAYATZNG FEES 36482 ANIMAL ADOPTION FEES SO0 36453 ANIHAL IMPOUND FEES 10600 36454 ANIMAL OZITE#PER SHOT 36480 SECURITY CHARGES 36481 FIRE SCHOOL CHARGES 10,000 36482 ATTORNEY FEES 36483 CBNNUHICATIO~S CONTAc 36512 COURT PINES 160656 36513 LIBRARY FINES 3,000 ~I~ LIBRARY DONATIONS RISC DONATIONS 37600 RISC REVENUE 5,ooo 37601 IN-KIND SUPPORT 37620 RENTS · LEASES 22,793 37621 TIDELAMDS RENTS 37622 FT KERRY RENTS 1,600 38661 TRANSPR FROM AiR TERM 11,400 38682 TRANSPR FROM AiR LAND 42,106 38683 TRANSFR FROM # & S 350800 TOTAL REVENUE 3o423,185 DEPARTMENT 41100 LEGISLATIVE 34,123 41140 CITY CCERN 4?,963 41200 CITY ATTORNEY 90,255 41320 CiTY MANAGER 63,407 41800 FINANCE lfl?,4S8 41650 DEFT, OF REVENUE 30,805 41800 NDrJ.-DEPARTNENTAL 684,183 41000 PLANNING AND ZONING 13,505 41980 HARBOR CO#MISSION 1,499 42100 POLICE 6470208 42200 FIRE 542,86T 42240 FIRE AUxIkARY 2,000 42250 FIRE SCHOOL 10,000 42300 CONHUNICATIONS 130,336 42900 ANZHAL CONTROL 40,550 431i0 PUBliC W~KS AD#IN 1090745 43120 PUBLIC WORKS SHOP 204,706 43130 PUBliC WORKS STREETS 154,524 43i40 BUILDING INSPECTION 37,0?6 43180 STREET LIGHTING 27o280 44010 LIBRARY 66,891 440§0 MUSEUM 10,629 45010 RECREATION 32,039 46020 PARKS 40,519 48010 OTHER 392,66? TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 30423,188 100000 250442 16o688 30000 3,212 60000 70900 220793 410 !,500 110400 42,106 350600 3o451o730 KENAi CiTY REVENUE . £xPENGITURE SUMMARY AUGUST 31o IgT9 CUT~.iGT Ck,~ C,*;T BUDGET ~NT, D~TE 250e000 ~ · 162,497 SOO,GO0 800 eGGO 490468 ~95,899 60eGO0 600000 l,OoO :eO~SeO00 12eO00 JGeO00 924 200 600 38 65 250 40300 J o943 ~ e943 163t300 J 30 o 000 29,347 29,347 35~000 4~ ,?08 ~3,500 t2~ZO0 240000 750 ~ t 188 26~000 40174 60523 300 ?S 122 SO0 U2 127 30 60 660 680 6~8 20708 50048 400 681 6 102 376 13,930 J60 335 $0 150 778 41 250 109e746 204,706 1600524 370976 27,280 E6~BOi 10,629 320039 400519 384,467 304690730 RUN 790909 TiME 1739 RANCES BALANCE 260,000 662,49T 49046~ ~3~o899 101,457 1,086,000 536 260 i,943- 163,300 1000653 60706- 1*400 24,000 438- 18,477 ITS 373 1,248 10.0~0 510- 25,442 110607 20319 102- 3,589 7,000 80863 410 1,16S 11,400 42,106 380800 2,778,207 123 10,074o 9,387~ 10,545 32,965 163 20780 40985 2,626 40,352 2SS 6oT39 11,013 40853 T4,389 407 10212 20254 931 60*222 458 110828 22,699 4,395 160,364 805 2,215 40221 20413 24,i72 083 303~1 1220084 TEO 469,249 685 93? 10713 305 11,566 499 1,409 208 390739 73,982 §,4~0 467,736 579 440340 78,488 26,474 4420617 000 31 67 1,034 000 $0,000 lOeT~l ~9o474 T,288 129,017 20706 4,965 1,479 34081? 7,608 130906 3,004 92,030 11o731 18,598 7065? 178,491 I$e008 20,331 40361 135,833 20805 50235 6 32*738 10097 1,383 250867 60012 120842 100046 64,004 1021S 2,256 8,373 305~1 80321 493 23,225 2o0o? 4,S76 1,3i3 340630 3840467 163,662 413,904 940388 20941,387 6020118 6810832 20778020? TOTAL ~EVENUE 304230185 304590?39 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 3o423,185 3,4510739 103,668 4230994 94,388 200410387 1 0000 TAXES 1110 1113 1114 1130 1140 LICENSE 222I 2222 2223 2224 ~NAI CITY 0SI31/79 CSTI~AT~S ACTUAL GENERAL FUND ORIG$~AL CURRENT CURRoMOhTM YE·Re?U-DATE BALANCE CDNTRIS FRO# FUND OA~ 2S0,000 2500000 250,000 REAL CURRENT 10162,497 1o162,497 SOO,OOO 50~o000 ·62,497 REA~ PRIOR 490468 49,468 49,468 PERSONAL CURRENT 195,899 19E,599 60,000 600000 135,899 PERSONAL PRIOR 1,000 1,000 I,O00 01~ CURRENT 1010457 101,457 101,467 SA~ES TAX 1,088.000 I.OSE,000 10088.000 FRANOHIS£ TAX . XUSCO $2,000 12,000 12,000 TOTA~eTHIS yEAR 20610e321 2,6100321 6600000 5600000 2,0500321 i PERMITS LIC &PERNITS ~ 5~DG ISo000 16,000 92A 1043T 13,563 LIC · PERMITS TAXI 200 200 70 121 LIC & PENN . ANIMALS 600 600 38 66 535 LIE & PERMITS - OTHER 75- TOTAl. THIS y~AR $60800 ~50800 887 ~o581 140219 STATE REVENUE SHARING 4341 STATE GRANT - ~IERARY 250 250 250 4342 STATE GRANT LIGHTS 40300 4e300 519 3,T81 4344 STATE GRANT -- NIYAY ~,g43 1,043 1,943- 4350 STATE REVENUE SHARING 1630300 163,300 1630300 435~ GUS LICENSE REVENUE 1300000 130.000 29,347 20,347 100,653 4352 FISH TAX REVENUE 350000 36,000 41,708 6,708- 4363 LIRUDR LICENSE REV 13.500 130500 12.100 1,400 4354 ELECTRIC COOP REVENUE 240000 24,000 240000 4355 GAMING DEVICES REV 750 750 10188 438- ToTAL-THiS yEAR 3TI.lO0 371,100 310290 860805 284,295 CHARGE FOR CUR~ SMVCS 6411 COMMIES -OEPT OF REV 250000 25,000 4,174 60E23 18,477 6421 FInGERPRiNT FEES 3GO 300 76 122 178 6440 EXCAVATING FEES 185 les 1fl5- 6452 ANIMAL ADOPTION FEES 500 SOO 82 127 373 6463 ANIMAL IMPOUND FEES 10500 10500 212 252 1,248 64E4 ANIMAL DISTEMPER SHUT 30 EO 50- 6480 SECURITY CHARGES 650 650 650- 6405 FIRE SCHOO~ CHARGEE 100000 lOoO00 100000 6482 ATTORNEY FEES S18 518 518- 6483 COMMUNICATIONS CON?Re 25,442 26,442 TOTA~oTHIS YEAR 37.300 62tT42 5.026 80426 64.316 6512 COURT FINES 160655 16,655 20?08 60048 110607 6E13 LIBRARY FINES 30000 3,000 400 eel 2,319 66J4 LIEN·MY DONATIONS 5 102 6616 NISC DONATI0NS -~ 3,212 30211 /1/ TOTAl-THIS yEAR 190655 220867 30112 90043 130824 *--THIS-TM CHARGE FOR CURR 6RVCS 86,956 D6,609 9,030 J?,4SO 60,140 OTHER REVENUE ?600 RISC REVENUE Soo00 8*000 367 10411 3,589 7601 IN-KIND SUPPORT ?,900 7,900 76E0 RENTS · kEASES 220793 220793 375 13o030 80863 7621 TIDELANDS RENTS 410 410 410 ?622 PT HENRY RENTS 1,800 ltSO0 160 336 1o165 .... TOTAL~TNIS YEAR 200703 37,603 903 18,677 21,926 860I TRANSFR FROM AIR TERM 11,400 11,400 11e400 86E2 ?~ANSFR FROM AIR LAND 42,106 42,106 420106 8683 T~ANSFR FROM W · S 360800 3StSO0 350800 TOTAls?HiS YEAR 80,306 89,306 89,306 TOTAL FUND TNIS~YEAR 3,4230180 3t4~g,739 ·020118 681,E3~ 2,778020? RU~I 700909 TIME 1728 · · · · · · · · · · · · OI KENAI CITY EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEN DETAIL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31e 1979 GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPE.DZTURE ORIGINAL CURRENT NO ACCOunT fluDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD ENCUmB- RANCES OlO0 SALARIES 200 400 0400 FICA 0700 WORKMANS COMP I 3 PERSONA~ SERVICES 201 403 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 4632 COMMUNICATIONS 4533 TRANSPORTATION 4634 ADVERTISING 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING OTHER SVC AND CNARG£S 8064 EXPENSE #ACH AND EQUIP CAPITAL OUT~AY 2,400 2*400 148 148 20 20 20568 2e668 SO 50 360 360 410 410 18.000 18.000 ISO 4,000 40000 1,500 10500 3,000 3*000 260660 26.6S0 40200 4*20D 4*200 4*200 295 295 205 205 34,$23 34,123 5,500 50500 2 30 41 191 T 20 2.504 50701 5.742 20545 IS0915- 15,631-- ' ' 80000/ 1§,975- 15.S31- 80000 U~ENe CU#G£RED BALANCE 20000 148 2016S SO 360 410 120 3,95g 476 18,364. 295 295 32,g65 ACYZ¥ITY 45140 CITY CI,,ERK KENA! CZTY ExP£NDITURE LINE-ITEM DETAIL GENERA~ FU~D ACC? EXPEMDIT~KE G~A~ CURR£KT EflCUM~- CUMBERED ~O ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD RA~CE$ BAlAnCE OlO0 SALARIES 230500 230500 legS8 30917 0~00 ACC~ ~EAYE 10808 1o808 1,808 0400 FICA I*55Z 1.552 10552 0500 PE~S 20172 2oi72 168 168 2,004 0600 ESC 60T 507 607 O?OG ~ORKNANS COMP - I04 104 4 Il 93 PEA$ONA~ SERVICES 3~0645 3J0643 20582 40147 27e406 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 850 BIO S8 6B 9 783 S~PP~lES 850 860 68 68 9 783 · 4531PROFESSIOHA~ SVC &o400 10400 1,400 4532 CD#HUNICAT~DNS 436 435 63 160 275 4533 TRANSPORTATION 10335 I0335 20 40 200 $6095 4534 ADvEqTISING 205O0 20S00 60 182 420 1,890 453S PRINTING AND BINDING BI0 850 8S0 4S39 RENTALS 30350 30350 398 398 10980 966 ................... DTH~GV¢ AND CHARGES 90870 90870 540 780 2,617 60473 *- 5041 MISCELlAnEOUS lO0 SO0 -' $00 SPECIAL EXP~,$E lOG 8064~A~ AND EO~IP ~ S,SO0 .... SoSO0 ....... G.SO0 CAPITAL, GUT~AY 50600 5sSO0 6,600 CITY CGGRK 470963 470963 Be780 4~gBS 20626 40~352 LEGiSI. AT$¥E 82~086 820086 70~93~ 40401- II~l?G 7303I? FUNDS · · EXPE~DzTuR£ ACCOUNT CiTY GRIG~NAL CURRENT ~uDGET SUDGET NDNTfl YTD RUN 790909 E~CUNDo RANGES CU#~RED BALANCE 0100 SALARIES 53t902 83*902 4,459 0,919 44,004 0200 OVERTIME 385 386 355 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 3t336 3*336 3.336 0400 FiCA 3,53~ 3*53~ 3.531 0700 MDRKMANS COMP 237 237 11 31 206 0800 HEA~TH lNG 4,000 4*000 293 293 3,707 2021DPFZCE SUPPLIES ltEO0 1,200 112 SO 54 1.066 2023 REPAIR--MAJ~T SUPPLIES 200 200 70 SUPPLIES ~t400 leESO 152 O0 269 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 4.000 3*850 8 4- 499 3.355 4532 CD~HUN~CATZONS 2t300 2~300 270 333 15 4533 TRANSPORTATION ltSO0 1,600 405 4SO 303 1,047 4535 REPA~RS-NAZflT 200 200 165 165 35 4839 RE.qTAI.S 2,900 20900 446 446 2.231 223 OTN~J~ 5¥C AND CHARGES 14,500 14~350 1t290 903 4,220 9.225 · 04~ MISG'"~ANEDUS 2t500 2,S00 182 404 ~66 8066 BOOKS 400 400 199 CAPITAL OUI'L. AY 400 400 ~99 CiTY ATTORNEY 90,255 00,25~ 6,739 l;,Ol3 4.053 74.389 C~TY ATTORNEY go,EsS 900285 6,739 ~l,Ol3 4.853 74,380 0 · · · · · · · · · · · · · fUNDS Ol GEb'ERAL FUND PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT 41320 CITY MANAGER EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEM DETAIL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31o ORIGZflAL CURRENT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH ·t OlO0 SALARIES 430000 430000 0300 ACCRUES) kEAVE 2,81Z 20812 0400 FICA 2e809 20809 0500 PERS 3,931 30931 72 0600 ESC 917 917 0700 NORXMANS COMP 353 383 9 0800 HEALTH INS 20000 20000 -' PERSONAL SERVICES 850822 85*822 232 790909 TINE 1724 UNENm £NCUMB. CU#BERED RANCES BAI. ANCE YTD 830 420161 20809 T2 30859 917 45 308 1,107 540715 S~°Pi. IES SOO SOO lis 111 14 376 4532 COMMUNICATIONS $0835 10835 238 283 1,552 4533 TRAUSPORTATION 20000 2e000 492 492 10508 4534 ADVERTISING 200 200 $36 1~6 64 4535 PRINTING AMD BINDING 20000 20000 3 36 916 10049 4~38 REPAIR$oNAI~T 200 200 89 lis OTHE~ SVC AND CHARGES 6e235 60235 869 1,036 916 40283 5041 MISC.~LLANF..(3OS 850 850 850 SPECIAL EXP£NSB 850 850 850 CITY NANAGE~ 63e407 630407 10212 20264 931 600222 CITY MArdAGER 630407 630407 102;2 20204 931 600222 EXPf~NDITURE LIHE-ZTEN DETAIl. NONTH EtID£D AUGUST 31, lgTg · · · ACTIVITY GENERA~ FUtAD ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH 0100 SALARIES 1200135 I20e135 9,788 0200 OVERTIME 1,158 1t158 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 8,183 80183 0400 FICA 70938 ?*938 0S00 PERS 11.I1~ 11*151 866 0600 EEC 20589 2t589 0700 WORKMANS CoMP ~33 833 24 0800 HEA~TH ;NS 100000 100000 538 PEgSONA~ SERVICES 161,647 1610647 11,216 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 4531 PR0FESSIONAL SVC 4532 CO##UNICATIDNS 4533 TRANSPORTATION 4534 ADVERTISING 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING 4538 REPAIRS-MAINT 4539 RENTALS GT,~J~ $¥C AND CHARGES SPECJA~ EXPENSE FINANCE 40500 AeSO0 40600 40600 3t000 3~000 3*000 3*000 20500 20500 400 400 20400 20400 GO0 800 0736 8-736 20,836 200836 475 475 475 475 187e468 1870488 RUN 790909 TIRE 1724 UNEN~ YTD RANCES SA~ANCE 19,566 1000569 306 552 4~2 7,701 70938 866 10,246 2,589 68 465 538 90462 21,827 1390820 32- 10871 20662 32' 1,871 20662 30000 348 533 2,467 40 80 400 2e020 30 30 50 320 6 142- 20037 505 184 356 444 80736 608 857 2,487 17,403 3 48 38 389 3 46 35 389 110828 22,690 40396 1660364 · · · KENAI CiTY ExPENDXTURE kiNE-iTEM D~TAI~ MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31e ~UND$ O$ GENERAk FU~D .. ~ PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE DRIGZNA~ CURRENT · ACTiVXTY ND ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET 41560 DEFT. OF REVENUE 0100 SALARIES 19eB61 19,551 0300 ACCRUED kEAVE 863 0400 FICA 1,262 1.252 0500 PERS 1,500 1.500 0600 EEC 350 350 0700 WORK#AMS ¢OHP 84 84 0800 HEA~TH PERSOHA~ SERVICES :26t600 25*000 2021 OFFICE SUFFIXES lO0 100 2022 DPERATING ............................... SUPPliES 4532 CSMNUHICATIONS 1,500 1.500 4533 TRANSPORTATION 600 600 4534 ADVERTISING 4538 REPA:RS-MAINT - 200 200 4530 RENTALS ~t6ES OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 5t030 5*030 DEPTe OF REVENUE 30~805 30*505 FINANCE 218,265 218~263 MONTH YTD 1,614 3,044 4 14 " 40 49 10783 3e223 20 26 '' 20 '- 26 171 400 20 40 89 972 14,042 26~920 Rut4 790909 TIME 17:24 UNEN. ENCUMI3- CUMBERED RANCEG BAL. ANCE · 200 20213 2,413 2,413 6,808 16,507 · 963 1e252 1e384 350 · ?0 1.g51 22,377 · 74 ?s · 1,100 36O ?S I11 · 1.645 24e172 1840535 · e _ KENAZ EXPENDZTURE LINE-;TEN DETAZL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31. 1979 RUIJ 790909 TZME 1724 FUNDI BI GENERAL FUND UNEN-- PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDZTURE DRZGZNAL CURRENT ENCUPD- CUMBERED ACTIV;TY NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD RANCE$ BAkAHCE 4~600 NONeDEPARTNENTA~ 2023 REPAIR--NAZNT GUPPkIES 1*500 1,500 SUPPkIES leSO0 1,600 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 2,000 2*000 4535 PRZNT[NG AND UINDING 3,500 3*600 4536 ~NSURANCE 160,000 160*000 4537 UT~LITZE$ 2,400 2e400 4538 REPAIRS-#AZNT 500 SO0 4539 RENTALS 28,610 36.410 OTHER SvC AND CHARGES 196,910 2040810 6041N~$CE~ANEOUS 1,000 1,000 S042 TRANS, TO OTHER FUNDS 365,773 365,773 5043 SPECIA~ ASSESSHENTS 9,000 9,000 5046 TRANSFERS TO RESERVES SO*o00 lOeOOO SPECiA~ EXPENSE 385,773 385e?73 NON-DEPARTHENTA~ 584,183 592,083 NON-DEPARTNENTAL B84,183 6920083 1,500 1,500 238 750 3,500 20290 117,811 420189 731 445 1,955 SO0 ;04 3,368 33,042 3,125 121,862 750 216 223 7T? 365,773 9,000 100000 216 223 385,550 3,341 122,084 750 469,249 3,341 122,004 760 4690240 · · · · · · · · · PROGRAM ACTIVITY 41800 PLANNING ANO ZONING GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPEr4DITURE MO ACCOUNT KENAi CiTY EXPENDITURE LINE-iTE# DETAIL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 3It 1970 ORIGINA~ CURRENT EUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD 0100 SALARIES 0,201 Oe201 667 10334 0200 OVERTIME 10163 1e103 67 ~$6 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 442 442 0400 FICA G03 603 0500 PERI 843 043 60 60 0600 EEC 197 $9? 0700 #ORKHANS COMP 41 41 2 6 0800 HEALTH INS SeO00 $~000 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 200 SUPPLIES 200 200 4832 COMMUNICATIONS 280 280 49 49 4535 PRINT;HG AND BINDING EGO GO0 I 77 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 750 750 SO 126 -5041 MISCELLANEOUS 125 SPECIAL EXPENSE 125 126 PLANNING AND ZONING I3tEDE 13~58E 937 '-I RANCES 305 305 305 TINE 1724 UNEN~ CUMBERED 1,067 442 603 783 38 929 100923 200 200 310 125 110566 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · e ,dm, · · · · · · · · · · · ~UNO$ 01 ACTIVITY I CITY ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD 0200 DVERTINE 895 896 0400 PICA 56 55 0500 PERI T? 77 0600 ESC lB 0700 #ORKMANS CO#P 4 4 PERSONAL SERVICES 10049 10049 4836 PRINTING AND BINDING OTHER Svc AND CHARGES HARBOR COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING 200 200 250 250 450 460 10499 IoA90 150084 15.084 937 1,713 305 GENERAL GOVERNMENT ........ 7F ......... F-F I1--- I , Ut~EN~ ENCUMB. CUMgERED RANCE$ BALANCE 895 SS ?? 10049 200 250 450 ~:~ 10490 130065 260818 8740777 FUNDI 01 GENERA~ FUND PROGRA~ · ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINA~ CURRENT ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET 42100 POLICE 0 YTD % 0100 SALARIES 3160189 3160180 26,011 51,933 0200 OVERTIME 210202 210292 30049 40032 0250 HOLIDAY PAy 110566 110665 0300 ACCRUED ~EAVE 220169 22,169 1,011 20243 0400 FICA 220761 220761 0500 PER$ 310595 310895 2,380 20350 0500 EEC 70427 70427 " 0700 MORKMANS COMP 170790 170790 773 20201 0800 HEA~TH INS 240000 2400oo 1,650 1,659 PERSDNA~ SERVICES 4750088 4750085 340882 680248 202I OFFICE SUPPLIES 10500 10600 237 ............... 2022 OPERATING 3U~P~iES 220000 220000 -- 10187 2023 REPAIR-HAINT SUPPLIES 750 750 · 2024 SM TOO~ M;NOR EQUIP 200 200 SUPP~IES 240450 240450 10424 · 4531PROFESSiQNA~ SVC 40850 40850 32- ........................... 4532 CONMUNICATZONS 40300 40300 '. 333 4533 TRANSPORTATION 60510 60510 10123 · . 4534 ADVERTISING 50 50 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING 10400 1e400 -' - 4537 UTZLIT~ES 60000 60000 10083 · 4535 REPAZRS-MAINT 500 500 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 230610 230610 30407 · , 8041NISCE~ANEOUS 40010 40010 25 40010 40010 26 ......... SPECIAL, EXPENSE · 8064 MACH AND EQUIP · i CAPZT,~. OUTLAV POliCE · POliCE 200060 200080 200060 200050 5470205 5470205 5470208 5470208 390730 390730 RUN 790909 TIME 1724 UNEN. ;P~CUMB- CU~flE~ED 264,256 · 16,460 11,565 190926 22,761 · 290615 70427 15,589 220341 · 4090840 · 237 I01 10152 10946 I,010 190045 750 44 156 · · 23- 30298 10575 674 30626 20091 41 40378 5o · 8 870 522 20269 30741 lO0 400 · So007 40309 ~40203 10545 26 20439 · 10545 26 20439 200050 · 200050 730982 50490 4670736 · 730962 6,490 46?0736 · ~9 · · · · · · KENAI CITY EXPENDITURE gINEoITE# DETAIL MONTN ENDED AUGUST 31o 1979 ~uND$ Ol GENERAL FUND PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTZVZTY ND ACGOuNT BUDGET BUDGET 4~200 FIRE MONTH YTD 0100 SALARIES 330o139 3300139 20.285 53,500 0200 OVERTIME 150000 IBoOOO 826 1o476 0200 HOLIDAY pAy 11080? 11080? 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 210288 21e288 2o769 6o961 0400 FICA 230192 230192 ORO0 PERI 320457 320457 2.222 2,222 ORO0 ESC 70671 7o571 0700 IDRKNANS COMP 160988 160988 692 10957 0800 HEALTH INS 260000 260000 10660 10560 PERSONAL SERVZCES 484,442 4840442 38o343 67o665 RUN 790909 EtdCUMB. RArAC~S TIME 1724 UNEN~ CUMBERED BALANCE 2760639 130524 11.807 14o33T 230192 300235 70571 15o03I 24.440 416.777 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES ?00 700 392 399 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES lOoO00 100000 473 630 3,208 60163 2023 REPAIR-MAINT SUPPLIES 2o448 20448 24 46 201 20201 2024 SM TOOLS MINOR EQUIP 066 96B 46 36 315 614 SUPPLIES $4e1~3 14,113 036 ~,112 30849 90551 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 10485 10485 298 298 4532 CD#MUHICATZONS 3.310 3o3J0 301 564 4533 TRANSPORTATION 40000 4o000 373 373 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING 10210 1,210 116 124 4537 UTILITIES 100120 IOtSRO 30372 30870 4538 REPAIRS-NAINT 70382 80882 194 876 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 270507 290007 4.654 60104 5041 MISCELLANEOUS 3o676 30675 865 20065 SPECIA~ EXPENSE 30675 30676 665 2o06S NACH AND EQUIP 13o045 160257 1o534 ~o534 ROOKS DS 86 7 CAPZTA~ OUT~AY 130130 160342 ~oR42 10542 FIRE 6420867 64705?9 440340 ?80488 322 870 6.623 8,106 103 14,382 35 14.417 26o474 8064 8066 866 20746 3.336 216 6.250 10384 14.707 iDIOT 1o507 341 43 384 442o617 't o 0 · · · · · · 0 fUNDI PROGRAM ACTIVITY 42240 FIRE AUXZbARY OI · · · · · · GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPENDITURE ND ACCOUNT KENAZ CiTY EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEM DETAIL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 311 $979 ORIGINAL CURRENT DuDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD 0400 FICA Ill Ill 0700 #ORKNANS COMP 84 84 I 9 PERSONAL SERVICES 20000 20000 31 67 FIRE AUXI~ARY 20000 20000 31 67 RUM 790909 E~CUMB- RA~JCES TIME $724 UNEN. CUMBERED BALANCE 1o748 75 · e · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · FUNDS PROGRAM ACTIVITY 42260 FJR£ SCHOGL Ol KENAI CITY EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEN DETAIk MONTH ENDED AUGUST 3~0 1070 GENERA~ FUND ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL NO ACCOUNT BUDGET CURRENT Er4CU~B- BUDGET MONTH YTD RANCES OlO0 SALARIES 80000 80000 0400 FICA 40~ 491 0500 PERS 688 688 0600 ESC 446 446 0700 ¥OAKMANS COMP 375 375 PERSONA~ SERVICES lOeo00 $0.000 FIRE $CHOG~ lOeo00 lOGO00 FI~8 SEA¥ICE 564,867 5590579 44t371 78oS54 260474 2724 UUENo BALANCE 80000 688 446 375 100000 100000 454,550 4) ~ PRDGRA~ fUND1 01 GENERAL FUND ' ACCT EXPENDITURE · ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT .42300 CDM#uNICATIQN$ .... ~l ~ 0500 SALARIES 0200 OVERTIME 0250 HOLIDA¥ PAY 0300 ACCRUED ~EAVE · 0400 FICA 0500 PEgS ; ...... 0600 ESC 0700 ~ORKMANG COMP · : OeO0 HEALTH iNS PEgSQNAk SERvZCES · ~021 OFFICE SUPPLIES ....... · Oa4 SX TOOLS MINOR EQUIP · ' . SUPPkIES KENAZ CITY EXPE~DITURE kZHE-ITE# DETAIk MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, 1~70 ORIGI.AL CURRENT BUDGET ~UDGET MONTH YTD 820401 950412 7,9~0 16,395 1,643 1*962 43 95 3.511 4~193 60 5*022 6*888 5e67D 6*774 7,956 9*492 736 736 382 456 20 48 10*000 12f000 477 477 118~446 141~388 0,216 170811 300 300 124 122 30 30 29 20 330 330 163 leo 4532 COMMUNICATIONS 810 810 67 134 4538 REPAIR$-MAINT 10,000 10*000 1,205 10378 OTHER GVC AND CHARGES IO*BZO 10.810 1,362 l,S~2 #ACH AND EQUIP CDNTI~GENCIES CAPITA~ OUTLAY COMMUNICATIONS CO~;dUHiCATiQNS G064 8099 750 750 2*500 750 3*250 130,336 155*778 130.336 155*778 ** 10o731 19,674 ENCUMB- 6.S78 710 ?10 7.288 U~EN. CUMBERED 82.017 1,06T 4,133 5,888 6,774 8,756 20211 408 11,523 1230S77 178 1 676 20044 2,720 40 2,500 2*540 ~UND8 PROGRAM ACTIVITY 42800 ANI#AL CONTROL Ol KENAI CITY EXPENDJTURE LItAE~ITEN DETAIL GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPENDITURE ND ICCOuNT OR I G INAL cuRRENT EUDGET BUDGET NnNTH YTD 0100 SALARIES 220456 220456 Is827 30674 0200 OVERTIME 20056 2,056 165 259 0300 ACCRUED LE&VE 1,271 l,ITI 0400 FICA 10582 1,582 0800 PE~S 10953 10953 141 141 0600 EEC 456 4E6 OTO0 #ORKNANS COMP 10236 10236 SS 162 0000 HEALTH I~S 2eOOO 2·GOD 14& $44 PERSONAL SERVICES 330010 330020 20322 40341 CUHBEREO BALANCE 180782 I0271 30582 456 1·074 2806?0 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 200 Jl $$ 12 177 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES 50000 40850 313 364 616 30869 2023 REPAIR-NAZNT SUPPLIES 150 850 6 6 650 194 2024 SN TOOLS MINOR EQUIP lEO $50 5 i42 SUPPLIES 50500 6~050 330 381 i,2ES 40384 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 300 300 4532 CD#NuM~CATIONS 490 490 92 4533 TRANSPORTATION 250 250 &534 ADVERTISING 200 200 4537 UTIlITiES 400 400 20 20 OTHER Svc AND CHARGES I0640 10640 107 134 300 37J 250 205 380 $,506 5041 #ISCELLANEDUS 300 450 7 99 I03 . JIG SPECIAL EXPENSE 300 450 7 99 193 158 1,479 8066 RACH AND EQUIP CAPITAL OUTLAY ANgRA~ CONTRG~ ANIMAL CONTRO~ lOG ~00 $00 400550 41,250 20?66 4e955 AOeSSO 450250) 20766 40085 $0D ~00 34,8~7 3408~T · PUBLIC SAFETY 1o272,061 103030858 070606 1760064 40e73~ $00860520 F · · · · · · · · · · · PROG~M4 ACTIVITY K£~GAI CITY 140 ACCC~u~dT E~uD~ET BUDGET #GtJTH 0100 SAL,AaIE$ 69.199 69.790 5.680 0200 OVERTIME 3.071 3.075 66 46 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 4.I63 4,I63 0400 FICA 40724 40724 0800 PEAS 6.615 6065~ 488 486 0600 ESC I,~4~ 1,542 0800 HEALTH $~S §,GO0 EoOOO 36~ 367 PF..~SOUAL, OEA¥ICEs 96,$96 96.I95 6,638 $2,426 2021 OFFICE SUPPL,~ES 1.300 1.300 116 2022 OPEAATI~G SUPPL,IES Se000 1.000 3 2023 RI~PAIR~#AIIIT SUPPLIES J00 $00 2024 Sh TOOLS MINOR EOUIP 600 600 2 SUPPLIES 3.000 3.000 SI1 109 4532 CGMMU~fCATIDMS 2.000 2.000 385 ~33 TgA~GPO~TATION 1.500 Io50O 420 420 4~35 P~,T~G AND B~NDJNG 30500 3,500 8 OTH~ SVC ~lD ~G~S 9,050 90050 8~3 ~Utd 790909 Tfg~ 1724 U~E~- £~/CU~B- CU.~ER£D CAPITAL. OUTL,AY 800 gOO PUBLIC #GRKS ADMI~ $09,745 $09074§ 250 Z.6A7 2.857 76 76 7.608 $3.906 3.004 08.440 3.025 4.J63 4.724 6.J23 1.542 $.J20 4.633 830770 100 1.49S 1.080 $.290 637 46S · 586 586 80O 800 92.835 · · · · · · · · 4) · e ~ENAX CITY EXPEHDITURE LIKE-ITE# DS?AIL MONTH Ef~DED AUGUST 31. ~979 PUNDI 01 GENERAL FUND PROGRAM ACCT E~PEND;TURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ENCU~B-- 4CT;VITY NO ACCOVMT EUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD RANCES 43;20 PUOL;C ~Oa~S SHOP 0;00 SALAd;ES ?2.;79 72.179 0200 OVErT;NE 2.714 2.7;4 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 6.346 61346 0400 PICA 4.920 4~920 0500 PERS 6.886 6.886 0600 EEC ;.606 $.60E 0700 MORKMANS COMP 3.;46 3.;46 OEO0 HEALTH ;NS 6.000 6.000 PERSONAL SERVICES ;02.?96 ;02.796 202; OFFICE SUPPLIES .- $50 160 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES ~u. O00 40.000 2023 REPAIR~HA~NT SUPPLIES 46.000 45.000 2024 S# TOOLS NXNOR EQUIP 2.000 2.000 SUPPLIES 87.~50 e?.;50 453~ COMMUHICATZONS 835 835 4533 TRANSPO~TATIBN 300 300 4537 UTILITIES 4.000 4.000 4538 REPAIRS-HA;NT E.oOO E.O00 6539 RENTALS 600 SO0 OTHER EVC AND CHARGES ;0.635 ;0.636 SO41 #;SCEL~ANEOUS 1.750 SPECIA~ EXPENSE $.7§0 $.750 8064 NACH AND EQUIP 2.375 2.3?5 CAPZTA~ OUTLAY 2.375 2.376 PUBL$¢ ~ORK$ SHOP 204.706 204.706 5.838 11.676 60S 50; 84 436 43L 6.859 13.138 1.354 S.169 4.S08 346 677 1.556 2 2 236 I.?03 ~0660 6.300 643 950 ;16 157 242 806 ;.148 242 I25 225 1.075 $25 226 1.075 2.237 2.237 2.237 2.237 ;1.73; 18.698 I _ I _1 UNEN. CUMBERED 60.503 2.714 5.346 4.920 6.386 1.605 5.564 89.658 ;49 34,323 42.767 1.762 79.000 734 3.050 4.601 9.246 45O 45O ;38 ACTIVITY '43530 PUEklC MSRKS STREETS · KENA! CITY EXPENDITURE LZNE-ZTE# GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPENDZTURE ORIGINAk CURRENT NO ACCOUNT BUDGE? SuDGET 0200 OVERTIME 120088 120008 0300 ACCRUED ~EAVE 50088 50088 0400 PICA 60036 60036 0500 PERI 8,446 80445 0600 EEC 1.969 10969 · OTO0 WORKNAN$ COMP 70943 ?,043 OEO0 HEA~TH INS 0,000 80000 PERSONAL SERV2CES 1300804 130tS04 2021 OFFICE SUPPlIEs 20 20 2022 OPERATING SUPP~JES 20000 20000 2023 REPAIR-MAINT SUPP~2ES 110200 110200 2024 5# TOO~S MINOR EQUIP 750 750 5UPPLZE5 130970 13.970 4532 4533 4537 4530 4539 6041 -- 8062 8063 TRANSPORTATION 250 150 UTILITIES REPAXRS-NA2HT 4*700 40700 RENTALS 20000 20000 OTHER $VC AND CHARGES 6,950 6e900 MISOELLANSOUS 2*000 20000 SPECIAL EXPENSE 20000 2,000 BUILDINGS 800 800 X#P OTHER THAN fl~DGS 6,000 CAPITAL, OUT~AY 800 60800 PUB&lC WQRKS STREETS 164,524 1600624 MONTH 80182 684 344 628 9,838 195 823 28 1,040 124 124 YTD 160147 964 628 $0o423 828 $o012 756 79- 67? 220 220 200332 RUN 7~0900 TIME 2726 ENCUMB- CUMBERED RANCES 3,077 3,077 8 1o277 2,277 4,361 65,008 · 120088 5,088 60036 70761 · 1,969 60979 7.372 2o · 10840 7,295 722 · 9,082 756- 4.693 20079 6,266 · · 504 504 · 6.000 · 6.800 · PROGRAM ACTIVITY 43140 BUILDING INSPECTION KENAI CITY ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET YTD 0100 SALARIES 26,965 260965 20164 4,328 0200 OVERTIME 612 812 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 10998 10998 0400 FICA 1t764 10764 0500 P£RS 20469 20469 186 186 0600 ESC 575 575 0700 #ORKNANS COMP 783 783 35 97 0800 HEALTH INS 20000 2oG00 146 146 PERSONAL SERVICEs 360366 360366 20631 40767 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 20 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES lBO 2024 SN TOOLS #INOR ~GUIP 100 SUPPLIES 270 4532 COMMUNICATIONS 500 4533 TRANSPORTATION 340 OTHER EVe AND CHARGES 840 MISCELLANEOUS 600 SPECIAL EXPENSE 500 BUILDING INSPECTION 37,976 5041 20 160 16 17 lOG 9 270 25 26 500 69 91 340 840 59 91 $00 190 361 500 190 361 370976 20805 50235 IIII II I . I RU~ 790~G9 Er4CU~- 6 6 6 TINE I?IS UNEfl. CU~O£R£D BALANCE 210638 10998 10764 20283 686 310609 20 133 244 409 340 '749 133 133 320?35 · · P~DGRAN &CTfV~T¥ 435S0 STAEET L~GNT~NG KENAI C/TY EXPENDITURE LZNEoZTE# DETAZ~ MONT. ~NDED AUGUST 3le 1979 GENERAL FUND ACCT EXPENDITURE DR~GINAL CURRENT hO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET 4S37 UTILZTZES $?,2S0 4638 REPAZRS--#AI~T $Oeo00 lOtO00 DT~ER SVC AND CHARGES 2To,SO 2Te2EO PUBLIC WORKS SS4e20~ E4Oe20$ MONTH YTD RUrd 700909 UNEN. ENCUMB- CUMBERED ~ANCES BALANCE 987 i,272 150978 $JJ S$~ 9,889 1e097 1,383 25.867 l*og? 1o~83 25e867 34e249 590462 s4,gDB 465e?6J 340249 59e452 14,988 465,76~ · · · · · · · · KENAI CITY ExPENDiTURE 'INE-ITEM DETAIl. MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31, lg?g 700009 TIME PMDGRA# ACTIVITY 44010 ~IBRAR¥ FUNDS 01 GENERAL FUND UNE~- ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINA~ CUR~EN? ENCU~8. CUMBERED ND ACCOUNT BUDGET BUUGET MONTH YTD MAliCES BALANCE 0100 SALARIES 40,118 400118 3,346 60704 33,414 0300 ACCRUED kE&VE 2,844 20844 20844 0400 FICA 2*635 2,63§ 20635 0500 PERI 30687 30687 280 289 30390 0000 EEC 860 860 860 0700 WORKMANS CoMP . 177 177 10 23 154 0800 HEALTH INS o0000 6~000 332 332 S0668 PERSONA~ SERVICES S6e321 56e321 3,976 70348 480973 2021 OFFICE SUPPkIES 20000 20000 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES ~50 550 2023 REPAIReMAINT SUPPLIES 700 700 2024 SN TOOLS MINOR ~QUIP BO0 500 $~PPLIE$ 3,760 3,750 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 50100 5.100 4532 COMMUNICATIONS 1,500 1.500 4533 TRANSPORTATION 900 900 4534 ADVERTiSiNG 260 250 4535 PRINTING AND BiNDiNG 3,400 3e400 4637 UTILITIES 6e400 6e400 4538 REPAIRS--RAINT 4539 RENTALS 2ciO0 2.100 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 20,500 200500 S041 MISCELLANEOUS BO0 800 SPECIAL EXPENSE 800 500 8064 5066 #ACH AND EQUIP 320 320 ED'KS 5,200 5,200 CAPITAL OUT~AY 50520 5,520 LIBRARY 86e891 860801 48 59 276 1,665 17 60 490 66 65 19 616 74 426 ~31 184 369 3e197 400 800 4,000 300 108 104 1,306 20 40 200 660 i67 167 83 120 120 20260 612 836 40564 55- 385 ZOO 1,366 20043 1,371 40585 60580 90335 111 IS3 ~40 477 2i9 502 642 2,737 10921 802 642 2,956 20022 6,092 12~842 100045 640004 ~ #ONTH ~ND~U AUGUST 31, 1070 , -' 'UNO, Ot G£NERAL FUND PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL e ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET '44030 #UGEUN · t 0100 SALARIES 6.978 6.976 , 0300 ACCRu~.D ~AVB 391 391 ...... 0400 FICA 462 482 _ 0500 PERS 632 632 · o6oo ESC 148 14o 0700 #ORK#AN$ CO#P · 31 31 [ ............ 0000 HEA~TH INS ' 20000 20000 · . PERSONAL SERVICES 100629 ~0,620 ~ ...... MUBEUN ~0o629 10,620 · ·i NONTH 89 7.307 YTD 2.167 89 20256 20266 150099 97.620 07.620 70307 $60099 ENCUMB. 100045 $00046 U~EN. CUMBERED BA~ANC£ 40808 391 452 643 148 31 20000 80373 80373 720376 720376 05 GENERA~ FUND ACCT EXPENDZTuRE ORZG~NAL CURREMT NU ACCOUNT EuDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD PROGRAM OJO0 SALA~ZES 0~00 ACCRUED ~EAVE 0400 F/CA 0500 PERS 0600 EEC 0700 ~ORKMAN$ COMP 0800 HEA~TH ~NS PERSDNA~ SERVZCES 2025 OFFZCE SUPP~ZES ~022 OPERATZNG SUPP~Z£S 4532 COY#Uti:CATIONS 8064 #ACH AND EQUIP CAPZTA~ OUTGAY RECREATZON 22.536 22ee36 2,327 7,008 685 685 269 269 ~139 1~139 leO00 lmOOO 73 73 28~204 28e204 2,629 70241 395 305 2e435 2m~B$ 536 545 2e830 2~E$0 674 604 560 560 5 72 560 840 $ 72 445 445 3~3 32~039 32e039 3,52~ 8~321 RUN 790g09 ENCUMB- RAncEs 280 280 493 U~EN- CUMBERED BALANCE 15,528 1e425 I*061 269 200963 23 1,643 488 23,225 PROGRA# ACTIVITY 4EO~O PARKS FUNDS O! G£NERAL FUND ACCT £XP£NDZTURE NO ACCOUNT 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 0400 FICA OEO0 PERS 0600 EEC 0700 ~DRKMANS COMP 0800 HEA~TH PERSONAL SERVICES KENAJ CITY ExPENDZTURE ~[NE-]¥E# DET4ZL NGNTH ENDED AUGUST oRIGINAL CURRENT BUDGET BUDGET 24,91S 24.05E 269 269 10257 SEES? l,O00 I*000 30,889 30,880 MONTH YTD 1,603 4,047 73 79 73 73 10838 4,287 RUN 700900 ENCUMB- RANCES UN£N~ CUNBERED 20,908 68S 10673 10061 269 1,178 927 26,60~ 2022 OPERATING sUPPLIES 10500 l,SO0 21- 90 1,609 2024 GM TOOLS MINOR EQUIP 200 200 16S 165 300 3S SUPPLIES SoSO0 3,SO0 $60 203 4~3 2,884 4533 TR4NSPORTATION 500 500 4538 REPAIRS-#AINT 200 SO0 4539 RENTAL.G I*030 10030 - -- OTHER SVC AND CHARG2S 2,030 20030 SO0 900 &GO· 10030 900 10330 SS $6 SO41MISCELL. ANEOUS $00 100 SPECIAl. EXPENSE ...... 8063 IMP DTH~q THAN E~DGS 4,000 40000 CAPITAL. O~T~AY 40000 4*000 -' PARKS 40,510 40,S10 PARKS & RECREATION 72,658 72*558 2.007 4.576 50520 S2.897 4,000 40000 PARKS & RECREATION 720558 720658 50528 12.807 1.006 ACTIVZTY 48050 0TNEJ~ $046 Tn~SFF.~qs TO R~SF_~VES 362,667 362~667 SPECIAL, £XPf~]S£ 362e667 362,667 1099 C,G#T~G~dCZ~S 30~000 2$eOOG O?Hf~q 302~667 384*467 OTh~q 392~667 384e467 392 ~ 667 384 ~,467 YTD ~l ?gGgG9 362~667 ~62,667 3~,467 · · · · · · · C~DE ~AN~ BUDGET ~UDGET ~O~TH DATE 37600 #lS¢ REyf~E 6 DEPARTUE~T ~U~ 79G909 TiME ~739 96,709 IJTfOAS Jl?~04~ ~0~3 12~325 2S~670 79.0S0 Jl?eOAS Il?e040 OeO~3 $2e32S 26~670 ?geGSG · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ZO~TE 6 ~4,000 ~4~000 4fg~J 6e974 J7~0~6 96~370 96eJTO JO~iTO 20f336 76~0J4 · · · · · DO #G~TH ~hDED AGG~$T 35e $979 NO ACCOUNT BuDGeT BUDGET #DHTH 4534 ADVE~TIGX~G 200 200 4536 Z~SU~A~CE 3*000 3*000 OTNE~ 6¥¢ Arid CI'IAJ~GEG ?O~o?4 65~7~0 7,685 Eogz ~D~S,-O?HP.~f~ 8099 C.Q#TiNG~NCI~S 4BO00 4pO00 CAP/TAL OUTLAY 4,000 4*000 ~U~l 796909 YTD 392 4,906 24,930 $1,622 26,273 3 3 3 3 8,023 $2,325 26,670 TiNE ~726 3,944 8,636 3cO00 200 il,400 4,000 $$,906 ?9,OSO ?g,oBO A J ~oO~y $ $7,045 J $? (.046 8..023 12,326 26.670 TO,OEO AiRPOrT T~qMJ~A& E~ITP CODE 34340 36445 · 36515 36700 36701 36?02 4) 36703 37600 BTAT£ GRANTS DEPARTMENT TOTAL OPE~ATgNG EXPENSES TOTAL 2,Go0 2,500 406 808 ~lD,OOO 116,000 9,703 26,096 g~,000 D2,000 7t929 $9,699 36~,120 362~104 37~031 30,67? 361,520 362,$D4 37,031 30,677 36~,EZO 362,104 ~8~E89 33,303 620 8,270 6,200~ 6~,444 89,904 ~3~389 72,301 335.427 357*324 · · · · · · KE~AZ CZT¥ 08/31/70 ESTZNATES ACT~J!. · &ZCENSE & PERNITS 43S0 STATE REVENGE SHARING 80270 8,270 TO?AH-THIS yE~Lq 8,270 8,270 20700 46,660- · CHARGE FD~ CU~R SRVCS 6441 HOOK-UP FEES 30600 8,200 6555 PENAlTiES & OTHER iHT Ee50O 20600 405 S0E · 6700 RESIDENTZA~ lATER ?YeO00 ?70000 6,E$S i30~56 6701 CONIERCZAL lATER $$6~000 1~6,000 9,703 26~006 6702 RESIDENTJAH SEIER 65,000 6G,000 5,778 JJ,~$S TOTAI..--TH~S YEAR 3500000 350,000 30e22E 70,002 ?600 N/SC qEVEN~E Jo J36 · TOTAI,.-THJS yEAR 684 $0 136 TOTAk FUND THgSeYEAR 361,S20 362,104 620 46,SS9 8,~70 64,E29 50200- J,692 63e309 720305 270e038 2760629 446 37,031 30,67? 335,427 4,, !, '"v' · · · · · · · · · · · PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE ACTi¥1rY NO ACCOUHT 43·00 MATER · SEYEq SvC, KENAI CITY EXPENDITURE LIN~olTEM DETAIL MONTH ENDED - AUGUST 3Jo 1970 ORZGIHAL CURRENT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD OIO0 SALARIES 0200 OVERTIME 6,921 0300 ACCRUED ~EAYE 3,205 0400 FiCA 30812 OEO0 PERS 4*640 0000 EEC 1e244 0700 MORKHANS COMP 20953 0800 HEALTH I~$ 4,000 PERSONAL SERVICES 780802 202~ OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES 4,300 GUPP~ES 13o97E 4E31PROFESSI~NAL S¥C 300 4E32 COMMUNICATIONS 700 4133 TRANSPORTATION _ 710 4~37 UTILiTiES 1~*000 4138 REPA/RS-MAZNT 16,8oo 4039 RENTAI.S 2e440 OT~ER SVC A~D CHARGES 360090 504Z MISCELLANEOUS 800 6042 TRANS, TO OTHER FUNDS 87e~24 SPECIAL EXPENS~ 580424 53*02? 5,725 50921 1.590 2,197 30205 3*012 4*640 373 373 1,244 20953 125 349 40000 200 200 780802 80103 14,~00 200 43 43 40300 44 80000 J,343 1.117 10478 13.07S ~t430 1,466 300 ?OD 132 750 16o000 ~0860 4~210 16.800 732 10227 2*440 35~990 2t723 ~*622 000 59 97 57*624 680424 EO 97 8064 8009 NACN AND EOUIP 10,?00 100700 COHTINGEMc~ES 100000 100000 CAPITAl. OUT~AY 2G~700 200700 ~ATER · GEMEA SVCe 2070895 207089J RU~ 790909 RA~dCES 45 571 3,2~2 30868 60 ·,230 6,290 545 641 TINE ~726 UqE~- CUMBERED BALANCE 41,727 3,724 30205 3.812 4,267 1,244 2,604 3,710 64,293 3,570 3,631 1,319 8*641 240 · 75S Io,79o 9,344 2,440 24,079 57,624 10,700 41 100000 20,700 175,498 4, FUND PROGRAM · ACTIVITY 43650 SEllER TREAT#ENT · $0 MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31. $970 RUN 790909 WATER AND SEWER ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ENCU~B- NO ACCOUNT OuDGET OUDGET #DNTN YTD RANGES 0100 SALARIES 400342 460342 3,691 0200 OVERTIME 50992 5*992 10325 0300 ACCRUED ~EAVE 2,042 2*942 0400 FICA 3t328 3*328 0500 PERS 40655 4*658 408 0600 ESL 10086 1*086 0700 WDRKMANS COHP 20302 2*302 94 0800 HE&~TN iNS 40000 40000 290 PERSDNAb SERVICES 600660 690680 50809 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIES 500 SO0 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES 3tOOO 3*000 J6E 2023 REPAIR-MAINT SUPPLIES 20000 2*000 63- 2024 SN TOD~S MINOR EQUIP 000 600 SUPPLIES 60000 STOOD 99 · 4532 COMMUNICATIONS 485 485 4533 TRANSPORTATION $0600 10600 .... 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING $0 SO 4537 UTILITIES JGoO00 SERO00 · ! 4E38 REPAIRS-MAZNT 4.000 41000 4539 RENTALS EEO 280 t~) OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 210285 2;0285 .......................... 6041 MISCELLANEOUS 10200 1.200 · 6042 TRAH$e TO OTHER FUNDS 440~24 45~200 · : ~PECIA~ EXPENSE A§eg24 4~0408 54 567 621 46' 46 · 8063 iMP OTHER THAN 8~DGS 40200 4e200 8064 HACH AND EQUIP ~00 SOO .' ...................... SOOO CONTINGENCIES 6elTO 60170 " · ' CAPiTA~ OUTLAY 10o870 10,870 .... SEVER TREATMENT 1530620 164*263 6.6?4 · PUflLIC WORKS . M · $ 36Jo020 362t104 18~880 ..................... 408 290 S0,745 S 160 159 170 667 3- 734 $0 110608 330303 ZOO 100 455 456 225 220 780 S$,478 UNEN~ CUMBERED BALANCE 370950 3,603 20942 30328 4,200 1,086 2,02? 3,710 580905 406 2.731 2.055 SO0 8078~ 316 1.G00 50 $40433 40003 250 20e551 ?36 45,208 450944 40200 275 6,17D 100645 141,825 357.324 ............. PU~&iC WorK? .. 3610620 362,$04 S8.889 33.303 16.470 3L7.324 34345 37601 NANE STATE GRANT - AGING IN--KIND SUPPDA¥ TOTAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT CGUNCI~ ON AGING TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES TOTA~ REVENUE TDTA~ QPERATING EXPENSES BALANCE O~IGINA~ O~DGET PAGE 6 KENAI CITY REVENUE . EXPENDITURE SUMMARY AUGUST 310 1970 RUN 790909 TIME 1739 CURRENT CURRENT YEARoTO ENCU#G- BUDGET ~ONTH 250200 6,300 180900 400432 60300 340132 400432 20809 40530 753 3EeJ40 400432 20809 40539 753 350140 400432 ~,300 340132 400432 20809 40539 753 3B~$40 20809- 10761 753- KE~A3 CZTY STATENENT OF REVENUE . £ST1vATED AND ~CTUAL ESTZNATES ACTUA~ OR~GTNAL CURRENT CURR-HDhTH YEAR-TGI~AT£ 2St~O0 65300 405432 65300 ~ALANCE I _1 I IIJ II _1 I I IIIIi)!11 · · · · · · · · · KENAI CiTY EXPEnDiTURE LI~E-ITEN DETAI~ MONTH ENDED 6~¢.~j~T ~, t97~ PROGR&M ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET MONTH YTD 0100 SALARIEs I6o?S4 Ie$54 20485 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 900 0400 FICA 849 0500 PEAS 1,180 99 99 0600 EEC 277 0700 JORKNANS CGRP 618 29 eS 0800 'EALTH INS 20000 142 142 PERSONAL SERVICES 22~EgI 10424 20855 2021 OFFICE SUPPLIEs JOO 67- 2022 DPERAT~tJG SUPPLIES $*349 2023 REPAIR-NAINT SUPPLIES IGO SUPPLIES $e549 67- ENCUPB- U.EN. CU#BEAED BALANCE 905 849 2TT 533 19,780 40 4531 PROFESSIONAL SVC 2eTO0 20700 4532 COMMUNICATIONS 940 131 254 686 4535 PRINTING AND BINDING ?SO 2 29 713 4537 UTILITIES 10002 731 731 4538 REPAIRS-#AINT 3*000 S22 781 2,219 4530 RENTALS ?e900 70900 OTHE~ SVC AND CHARGES $6~292 10385 1,795 713 130784 COUNCIL ON AGING 400432 20800 40539 753 350140 J 40f432 2~809 40539 753 350340 COuNCI~ ON AGING 400432 20809 4,539 753 35,140 K~AJ C~TY 20 AZ~PO~T ~A~B SYST~N REVERE - EXFEf~DJT~RE SU#NIRY AUGUST 35, 1970 CODE N~HE BUDGE? BUDGET ~ONT~ · 4347 STATE GRANT e AVZAT~O S~O00 6~00~ ~7600 HISC REV~UE SO G~SOLIN~ FEES 6~000 6~000 3~00 ~ESNBURSED 8O.D COSTS · B6SO TRA~SFR F~ON GEN FUND 3,S06 3~106 DEPARTNENT 84S 462~ A~RPO~T LiND 63.33& 63,334 BALANCE S3~668 RUU 790909 TZ#~ ~739 DATE RA~CES BALANCE 5,000 24 24-- 9,94~ 20~059 2,255 3,745 24 24-- ~0,000 J0~000-- 3,106 1,743 40481 $06,073 7,730 S 6G~3S2 $26,&00 117.325 PAGE · STATENENT DF REVENUE - ESTZ#A?ED A~ ACTUAL J0,468 SG4e$S? 9Sf4SB $8e767 JIE,4GO 119,216 JO,O00 10,000- $8e767 126,400 109,21S · GTATE REVENUE SHARING 4347 STATE GRANT o AVZAT~G S,OOO EEO00 DT~ER REVENU~ 4) 7600 NZSC REVENUE 7620 RENTS · LEASES 199,6lS 199,615 7626 ~ANDZNG FEES 30,000 30,000 7626 GASD~INE FEES 6,000 6,000 ~ 7627 PLANE PARK IhG FEE TOTAL~THIE yEAR 23S,616 23S,61S ~YOO REZRBuAsED BD~D CGGTS THI~--YR OTHER REVENUE A35,65S 235,616 B6SO T~ANSFR FRD~ GEN FUND 3tS06 3,106 TOTAk FuND THZS-YEAR 243e725 243e725 18~767 126,400 117,321 KENAZ CiTY EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEM DETAIL MDNTH GNDED AUGUST 35. tUND$ 20 AIRPORT LAND SYSTEM PROG~&N ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTIVITY ND ACCOunT BUDGET BUDGET MONT, YTD 46210 AIRPORT M&O 0[00 SALA~IE5 240811 24,811 236 606 0~00 GV~RTiM~ 9,000 90000 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 1,909 1*909 0400 PICA 2010S 2,101 0500 PERI 3,066 3,066 39 39 0600 ESC 750 ?lO 0700 MORKNANS COMP 2,584 2,884 63 22J 0800 HEALTH INS 2e000 2,000 PE-qSONAL SGAV~GES 4606Tl 46057~ 337 946 2025 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES 2023 REPAIR-MAINT SUPPLIES 2024 SM TOOLS MINOR ~GUIP ZO 20 30800 3,000 6,700 6,700 600 600 6.S00 6,600 0,0o0 B,O00 TRANS. TO OTHER PUNDS 3~.106 3~.106 SPECIAL EXPENSE 35,106 31.506 NAGN AND EQUIP 520000 120000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 12,000 $20000 4537 UTILITIES 4538 REPAI~S.oNAINT OTK~q SvC AND C~ARGES 5042 0064 846 35 94 3.668 253 250 545 223 $62 660 673 702 560 E~CUMB. 1,743 4.46~ 0 CUMOEREO 24.125 00000 1.909 5.101 3.027 710 2.663 2.000 4S.625 ~o 3,800 2.938 347 7.1DS 5.950 4.270 10.237 31.106 12.000 $20000 106,073 F. UND$ ~O ACTZVXTY · · · · · AZRPORT ~AND SYSTEN ACCT EXPENDXTURE NO ACCOUNT KENAZ CZTY £XPg~DZTURE k~£-[TE# BUDGET BUDGET 1979 YTD U~EN~ ENCUY~- CUMBERED RANCE5 BA&.ANCE 0500 SALARZES 43,300 430300 0300 ACCRUED ~EAVE 2,332 2e332 0400 F~CA 2~790 2~790 0500 PERS 3~916 3~956 0600 E$C 9J3 953 0700 VORKHANS CDHP 66S 5E~ 0800 HEA&.TH $N$ 4e000 40000 PERSGNA~ SERYZCES E?eB40 670840 SUPP&.iES 200 200 4532 CGHNUNZCAT~ONS leO00 ~eO00 4533 TRANSPORTATION 200 200 4535 P~ZHTZHG AND BZNDZNG 700 700 OTHER $¥C AND CHARGED ~t900 $egOO 5045 NZSCEC~ANEOUS ~.0SO ~eOE0 SPECZA~ EXPENSE $,050 ~060 8064 NACH AND EQUZP ?,ZO0 ?BIO0 CAP~TA~ OUT&.AY ?~00 ?*$00 A/RPDRT ~ANO ADNZN 68~090 6B~090 30623 7.0?0 36.22S 234 ~34 2.0~8 2.798 297 297 9J3 ~1~ 4 :~ 670 49 49 3,9S$ 4e207 7,670 36- 236 ~b~ ZOO 47 95 8 $e050 $~OSD 7,100 ?,ZO0 4e2~S 7e730 S 60e352 IlL ' I I KENAI CZTY _ ~uNDI 20 AZRPORT LA~D SYSTEM PROGRAM A¢CT EXPEnDITuRE OR/GINAk CURRENT ACTIVZTY NO ACCOUNT EuDGET BUDGET · 46~S0 AIRPORT HAND * ASRPORT ..................... AZRP(]RT I, AND SYSTEM" 4551PROFESSgONAk 8Vt ~8,000 4634 ADVERT~SZNG 200 200 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 180200 ~8~200 5042 TRANSo TO OTHER FUNDS 19,000 190000 5043 SPECiAH ASSESSMENTS 60000 50000 · 044 BAD DEBT EXP 2~704 2~704 GPECZA~ EXPENSE 26eT04 260T04 ~ ;~P OTNE~ THAN 8~DG8 8.000 8.000 '' - CDNTZNGENCIES 13~ASO CAP~TAH OUTHAY 210430 210430 AIRPORT ~AND 63~334 630334 AZRPORT HAND SYSTEM 2430721 243~T21 NONTH YTD 6 5 S 1,250 80099 9o4T? 8,739 RUN 790909 ENCUHB. RANcEs 1,250 TiRE i725 UNEH~ CUHBERED BALANCE 13o745 200 19,000 80000 20704 260704 80080 J3e430 210430 62,079 2280504 2430721 248e72~ 5~099 9o477 80739 2280504 8e099 90477 5,739 2280504 243o*/'21 243(,721 °I · ° · REVENU~ -- EXPEt4DITURE SUHHARy REVENUE ORISINA~ CURRENT CUrrENT VEA..?O ' TOTAL REVENUE 25,$00 25~S00 2$*SOO DEPARTMENT 423S0 STATE JAS~ CONTRACT 215,000 215~000 130835 24~872 2,459 iS?e669 TOTAL OPERATIhG EXPENSES 235,000 21~o000 130835 24~872 2e459 iS?e669 TOTAL. REVENUE 210500 21eS00 21,500 TOTA~ OPEAATSNG EXPENSES 21So000 2160000 13e83S 240872 20459 187e669 PAGE ~2 STATE.uAI~ C~NTRACT STATE REVENUE SHARZNG 4340 STATE GRANTS - GEN TOTAk FUND THIS-YEAR KENAI CITY STATEMENT OF REvENuE . ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL ORIGII4AL CURRENT CURR-MGKTN YEAR-TG~ATE 21~500 21e500 2~e500~ 2JeSO0 .~i5,.~) ) 21e500 · · · · · · · · · · KENAI CITY EXPENDITURE LINE-ITEM DETAIL MONTH ENDED AUGUST 31o 1979 ~uNDI 22 STATE JAIL CGNTRACT PROGRAM ACCT EXPENDITURE ORIGINAL CURRENT ACTIVITY NO ACCOUNT OuDGET BUUGET 42J50 STATE JAIL CONTqACT MONTH YTD I0,088 20,066 858 808 285 800 865 865 I20095 22,570 0200 OVERTIME 30000 30000 0250 HOLIDAy PAy 40240 4~240 0300 ACCRUED LEAVE 60628 60628 0400 FICA 8,376 803?6 0500 PERI $1o736 110735 0600 EEC 20?32 20732 OTO0 #ORKMANS COMP 60546 6o545 0800 HEALTH iNS 12,000 12.000 PERSONA~ SERVICES 177,~?I 1770971 UNENo BALANCE 102,659 3.000 40240 60628 8,376 $00877 2,?32 5,745 1550393 20210FPICE SUPPlIEs 500 500 257 259 241 2022 OPERATING SUPPLIES 230690 23tE90 ?46 745 10581 21,264 2023 REPAIR-#AINT SUPPLIES TO0 ?00 177 177 230 204 2024 SM TOOLS MINOR EQUIP 280 280 66 SUPPLIES 25,070 2500?0 10246 10296 1o9;0 210775 4532 COPMuMICATIONS ?00 700 89 137 563 4533 TRANSPO~TATION ?SO 750 ?SO 4585 PRINTING AND EINDING 360 360 3¢0 4536 INSURANCE 40000 4t000 40000 4537 UTILITIES 1,000 leO00 25 25 975 4538 REPAIRS-MAIN? 300 300 100 200 OTHER SVC AND CHARGES 7,110 ?olio Il4 ~62 460 60488 · · 5041MISCELJ,,,ANEOUS $0050 l,DS0 SPECIAL EXPENSE 1t050 10050 46~ 461 II 8062 BUILDINGS 8064 NACH AND EOUIP 450 450 380 376 8099 CONTINGENCIES 30349 30349 CAPITAL OUT,AY 3,799 3,799 380 375 STATE JAI~ CONTRACT Zl5,O00 2150000 130835 24,872 POLICE 215.000 215.000 13,835 24,872 PUBLIC SAFETY 2150000 215.000 130836 240872 590 6gD STATE JAIL CONTRACT 204E9 2,459 -Clml - :, 74 3,340 30424 1870660 1870609 1870669 · 215.000 215t000 130835 24,872 2,459 1870669 CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 79-134 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA THAT THE FOLLOWING TRANSFERS OF MONIES BE MADE IN THE 1979-80 AIRPORT LAND SYSTEM BUDGET: From: Airport M & O-Machinery & Equipment Airport Land - Contingency ($9,800) ($5,200) To: Airport M & O - Rentals $15,000 This transfer provides funding for the rental of the Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. building located in the Concession Area. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA this 19th day of September, 1979. ATTEST: Sue C. Peter, City Clerk Approved by Finance: C~z~_ VINCENT O'REILLY, MAYOR AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ~{EETING AUGUST 15, 1979 - 7:00 P.M. KENAI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL HEARINGS 1. Ordinance 519-79, recognition of donation in the amount of $3,212 from Xi Nu Sororlt~ PERSOIqS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD 1. Presentation of petition - representatives of senior citizens 2. Representatives from Social Security 3. Carmen Gintoli - Schematic H - Kenai City Hall MINUTES 1. Minutes of the regular meeting of August 1 & 2, 1979 CORRESPONDENCE 1, Jack Thompson - lease renegot!__~_tion rate 2. Wildwood Development Company 3. Lockheed Constellation - Richard Terrill and Morgan DeForest 4. Nlike~s Appliance Repair - rental space for City Hall 5. Peter Hansen. M.D, - rental space for City Hall 6. ~Midnight" Craning Service - offer to sell City She-Blower OLD BUSINESS 1. CressweH request for Water and Sewer Hook-up 2. Lease of Airport Facilities - Hertz, Raven ~, Sheffield 3. Ordinance 455-78, Tidelands 4. Reoonsider~t~on - f,,.e!Hty k~.own t~s the "Mukluk Building" NEW BUSINESS 1. Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified 2. Requisitions exceeding $500 3. Ordinance 520-79, grant from State for modifications to 5 s~,~ llft stations 4. Resolution 79-110, transfer of funds "Water and Sewer Lines" - $I,012 5. Resolution 79-1U, transfer of funds, Animal Control - $700 AGENDA, Page Two 6. Resolution 79-112, transfer of funds, Recreation - $280 7. Resolution 79-113, transfer of funds, LPT¥ Projects - $459 8. Resolution 79-114, acceptin~ a grant from DEC - $13,850 9. Resolution 79-115, awardin~ contract for installation and placement of si~n posts 10. Resolution 79-116, transfer of funds. Renovation of five lift stations - $?34 Il. Resolution 79-117, transfer of funds for installation of sign posts 12. Applicoflon for auxiliary power for Kenai Municipal Airport 13. Applioation for expansion of Kenai Muntoipal Airport Perking Apron facilities 14. Lease of Airport Lands or Facilities - Glacier State Telephone Company 15. Payments to Wince, Corthell, Bryson & Freas 15. Period~ Estimate No. 2 - Rockford Corporation 17. Pertodio Estimate No. 4- PR&$, Inc. 18. Perodi~ Estimate No. 4 ~ Wildwood Construction, inc./Alaska Constructors, Inc./J.V. 19. Pal~nent s to Ted Forsi & Associates ~ Kenai Spu~ Waterline Project 20. Change Order I - Wildwood Construetion/ACI, J .V. 21. Change Order 3 - Cordova Construction 22. Change Order 1 - Rockford Corporation 23. Discussion - Kanai Municipal Airport Arctic Doors Project 24. Discussion - City of Kenai House l~umbering Il(a): Resolution 79-118, ReJeeflngbid for t~'avel Il(b): Resolution 79-119, Accepting bids for equipment rental REPORTS 1. City Manager 2. City Attorney 3. Mayor 4. City Clerk 5. Finam~e Director 6. Planning & Zoning Commission 7. Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly 8. Harboz, Commfssion MAYOR & COUNCIL - QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS I. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ADJOURNMENT KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING · ~UGUST 15, 1979 ~ ?: 00 P.M. ENAI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 'MAYOR VINCENT O'REILLY PRESIDING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. ROLL CALL Present: Edward Ambarian, Charles B~flie, Betty Glick, Ronald l~alston, Vincent OVReilly, Michael Seaman and Phillip Abet. Absent: None AGENDA APPROVAL Councilman Seaman requested reconsideration of the Mukluk Butldin~ matter which would be under item F-4 and Mayor O'Reilly requested inclusion of items G-il(a) and G-LI (b) relative to the Parks and Recreation Department. Council so concurred. B. HEARINGS O~tinance 519-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 519-79 by title only. "An ordinance increasing estimated revenues and approp~-iatfons in the 1979-80 General Fund Rudget by $3,212 in recognition of a donation from XINu to purchase a defibrillator for the Kenai Fire Depa/-hnent.' There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Ordinance 519-79, purchase of defibrillator paddles and donation in the amount of $3,212. Motion passed unanimously by roU call vote. C. PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEABD C-l: Mrs. Louisa Miller On behalf of area-wide citizens, Mrs. Miller presented a petition to Council urging Council consideration to retain sponsorship of the senior citizen program. Mayor O'Reiily accepted the petition and submitted it to Councilman Seaman for review by the ad hoc committee from Council on the subject. B-h August 15, 1979 - Page 2 C-2: C-3: D-l: Molly Fiveash - Social Security Ms. Fiveash advised Council that she had held meetings earlier in the day with various City employees to explain all the ramifications of withdrawing from the Social Security plan. Ms. Fiveash reported to Council that a question and answer period was held and many areas of concern were discussed. Ms. Fiveash left further explanatory materials for Council review and steps to be taken for future action. Carmen Gintoli Mr. Gintoli, architect, presented Schematic II of the proposed City Hall complex. Mayor O'Reilly referred the matter to the Public Works Committee from Council and also advised that Mr. Andregg with CEIP would be available to meet with any interested persons on Thursday at 3 p .m. in the Public Safety Building. MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting of August 1 & 2 Councilwoman Oliek requested that adjustments be made to the minutes on pages $, ?, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19 and 22. Minutes were approved as corrected. CORRESPONDENCE Jack Thompson City Attorney Sehlereth advised that the matter would be discussed under the Attorney' s Report. Wildwood Development Company Mayor O'Reflly acknowledged receipt of correspondence from Mr. James Power offering 21.85 acres of land adjacent to the airport to the City for purchase from Wildwood Development Company and the City will respond advising that no acquisitions are planned at this time for additional lands surrounding the Airport. Lockheed Constellation Mayor O'Reilly advised that the City had received correspondence from Mr. Richard Terrill and Mr. Morgan DeForest in which the gentlemen requested Council consideration of their purchase of the Lockheed Constellation aircraft in the event that the present purchaser is unable to fulfil his agreement with the City. City Attorney Sehlereth advised that Mr. MeNamara contacted the City and reported that there was ,~ difficulty in obtaining certain equipment, etc.:needed to remove the aircraft from ticnai. City Attorney Sehlereth advised that Mr. l~eNamara has been given an extension to September 6th to remove the aircraft and during such time, .~.qr. McNamara will be asked to pay $25/day for tie-down fees. !'""!~ll Augtlst 15, 1979-Pa~e3 Mayor O'Reilly suggested that Council not grant any further extensions without Council discussion at which time the offer submitted by Mr. Terrill and Mt,- DeForest could be considered as well as the additional request for extension. E-4: Mike's Appliance Repair Mayor O'Reilly advised that correspondence had been received relative to the rental of office space to the City until such time a permanent structure could be constructed. Council discussion followed relative to the renovation of the Terminal which would preeipitate the moving of the City. Hall offices. It was the consensus of Council that until such time the renovation of the terminal project did proceed, time was not of the essence and the City offices would not be moved. Acting City Managar Charles Brown advised that with regard to the renovation project, l~ir. Huff of Wien had indicated a desire to meet with Council in a work session to discuss and address their needs for space in the Terminal. Councilwoman Gliek recommended encouraging Wien representatives to meet with Council and Administration relative to their needs. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, to direct Administration to pursue with l~/ien representatives to refine the situation as regards their present lease and define what their anticipated needs are and then set up a work session with Council present. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. E-5: Peter Hansen, M.D. Council reviewed a letter from Peter Hansen, I~.D. relative to the offer of rental space for City offices in the Benco Building. F-l: "Midnight" Craning Service Mr. Knight submitted a proposal for the sale of a used Sno-Boss Sno-Blower for $32,800 to the City of Kenai. Couneilwoman Gliok suggested that a work session be scheduled to discuss the requests from the various departments for equipment at which time lqr. Knight's proposal will be also discussed. OLD BUSINESS Cresswell request Publio Works Director Keith Kornelis reiterated the situation of the water and sewer in the vicinity of Mr. and Mrs. Cresewell's property line as discussed in the last meeting of Council and reported th-i approximate cost for some 125 feet of line including repair of the pavem~,nt, etc. would run $9-10,000. August 15, 1979 - Page 4 Councilman Ambarian stated that he felt the City was morally obligated to furnish the service to the Cresswells. Councilman Abet agreed, however, felt a resolution should be prepared spelling out in detail why the City was providing the water/sewer service to the owner's property line. Council concurred that a resolution be prepared for approval, of installation of line from the main to the property line in exchange for the over-assessment but also include within the resolution that this by no means relieves the CressweLls of paying the proper hook-up fees. F-2: Lease of Airport Facilities - Hertz, Raven and Sheffield Acting City Manager Brown advised that the City has received back the siffned leases from Hertz and Sheffield, however, Raven Transit has not yet signed their lease. MOTION: Councilman Bailie moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, that Raven Transit be given a thirty day notice in which to comply with signing of their lease document or the City will proceed with cancellation of their lease space. Motion passed by x'oll call vote with Couneilmembers Malston and Abet voting no. MOTION: Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of lease of Airport Terminal space to Hertz and Sheffield llouse for a term of one year. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. F-3: Ordinance 455-78 City Attorney Schlereth advised that the Harbor Commission had perused the ordinance in-depth and the Council now has the tidelands section before them for introduction. MOTION - REMOVE FROM TABLE Councilman Ambax*ian moved, seconded by Councilman .~alston, to remove the matter of Ordinance 455-78 from the table. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Abet, for introduction of Ordinance 455-78 as amended. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. F-4: Reconsideration - "Mukluk Building" matter ,As a verbatim transcript of this portion of the weating was prepared and is quite lengthy, the City Clerk included the transcript for incorporation in the minutes and is attached hereto. t' August 15,1979 - Page 5 ~.G. NBW BUSINESS G-l: Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified MOTION: Councilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of bills to be paid and bills to be ratified as presented this date. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-2: Requisitions exceeding $500 MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of requisitions exceeding $500. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-3: Ordinance 520-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 520-?9 by title only. "An ordinance amending Ord. 488-79 in recognition of a g~'ant from the State of Alaska for modifications to five sewer lift stations.' ~,fOTION: Couneilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman ~alston, for introduction of Ordinance 520-79, amending Ord. 488-79, modifications to five sewer lift stations. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-4: Resolution 79-110 Mayor OtRe111y advised that Resolution 79~110 transferred $1,012 in the capital project "water and sewer lines" for voltage changes and relocations by Homer Electric of power to lift stations. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman ~.falston, for adoption of Resolution 79-110, transfer of $1,012 in the capital project "Water and Sewer Lines:' Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-5: Resolution 79-111 Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-111 transferred monies in the smount of $700 to Animal Control, repair & maintenance to buy pipe and flttini~,s to run a sewer line to the Shelter. There was no public comment. August 15,1979 - Page 6 MOTION: Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of Resolution 79-111, transfer of $700 in Animal Control/repair and maintenance. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-6: Resolution 79-112 Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-112 transferred $280 in the Recreation Budget to have carpeting installed in the Parks & Recreation Director's Office. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for adoption of Resolution 79-112, transfer of $280 in the Recreation Department budget. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-?: Resolution 79-113 Mayor O'Reilly advised $459 is to be transferred in the five street LPW projects to provide monies to pay the Wince-Corthe11 bill of August 8, 1979. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Gliek, for adoption of Besolution 79-113, transfer of $459 in-the LPW Capital Project fund. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Resolution 79-114 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-114 by title only. "A resolution accepting a ~'rant from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, in the amount $13,850 for modifications to five sewer lift stations." There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Resolution 79-114, a~eepting grant from DEC in the amount of $13,$;>0. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-9: Resolution 79-115 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-115 by title only. "A resolution awarding the contract for installation and placement of approximately 200 4x4 siR'n posts with street name signs. August 15, 1979 - Page 7 There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, for adoption of Resolution 79-115, awarding the bid in the amount of $28.85 per post to Tolehina Excavating. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-10: Resolution 79-116 Mayor O'Reflly advised that Resolution 79-116 transferred $734 in the capital project fund entitled "Water and Sewer Lines" to provide monies per change order//3 for Cordova Construction. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Seaman moved, seconded by Councilwoman Gliek, for adoption of Resolution 79-116, transferring $734 in "Water and Sewer Lines." Motion passed by ro11 call vote with Councilman Ambarian voting no. Resolution 79-117 Mayor O'Reilly advised that Resolution 79-117 transferred $6,000 to Streets, improvements other than buildings, for the purpose of installing the street sign oosts. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwor~an Glick, for adoption of Resolution 79-117, transferring funds in the amount of $6,000 for installation of sign posts. Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilmembers Ambarian and Abet voting no. G-Il (a) Resolution 79-118 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-118 by title only. for ffravel from Ward Landscaping Service." There was no public comment. MOTION: "A resolution rejecting the bid Couneilman Ambarian revved, seconded by Councilman .~Ialston, for adoption of Resolution 79-118, rejecting bid for gravel at $6/yard from Ward Landscaping. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. August 15, 1979 - Page 8 G-Il(b) Resolution 79-119 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-119 by title only. "A resolution accepting bids for equipment rental to improve various City parks and to construct the East Kenai Park Trails." Administration requested that the following be added to the resolution ...... ~subjeet to the understanding that the t?oing union labor wage rates will be paid to equipment operators other than the owner/operator ...... " MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Resolution 79-119, accepting bids for equipment rental, as amended. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. (I-12: Application for auxiliary power MOTION: Councilwoman Gli~k moved seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval of submittal of pre-application to the FAA for ADAP funds to rehabilitate the Airport's electrical power control, distribution and auxiliary systems. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. City Attorney Schlereth requested Council approval to utilize Administration funds under this grant to obtain a tlfle opinion on the Airport lands involved. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, far approval for Administration to proceed with obtaininl!I title or)inions as needed and include such costs under the grant. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote with Councilm0n Abet not oresent for voting. G-13: Application for expansion of Kenai l~unicipal Airport Parking Apron facilities Acting City ~.ianager Brown advised that Administration had received a letter of proposal from Ted Forsi & Associates expressing a desire to prepare a pre-application to the Federal Aviation Administration for a fee of $750. Councilman Malston inquired ff just one bid had come in to the City and .~r. Brown responded that the bid came in unsolicited, however, he had been informed that the Planning Commission had some discussions relative to the matter but to what extent he did not know and perhaps the matter could be delayed. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Click, for approval for August 15, 1979 - Page 9 Ted Forsi & Associates to prepare the pre-application for submission to the FAA for funds to expand the parking apron facilities at the Kenai ~unicip~l Airport. Councilman Abet stated that he felt the project was very important to the City and time was indeed of the essence, however, Councilman Abet stated that he felt the Administration should allow other professionals the opportunity of submitting bids to the City -- perhaps going to bid but not just selectin~ one particular fl~m for each project. Councilman Malston stated he would agree with Councilman Abet that Administration should be aware that all firms must be given the opportunity to bid in the future. QUESTION: Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilman Abet voting no. G-14: Lease of Airport Lands MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman ~lalston, for approval of lease of Lot 4, Block 5, Cook Inlet Industrial Air Park, to Glacier State Telephone for a term of one year at the annual rental of $783.90 plustax for the purpose of use as a pole and cable yard. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. f,Q-15: Pmjments to Winee-CortheH MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman ~alston, for approval of payments to Wince, CortheU, Bryson & Freas as follows: invoice 77-43 (final) - $578; invoice 79-9-4 - $4,846.50; invoice 79-9-5 - $3,200; invoice #79~9 - $22,783.44. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-16: Periodic ]~stimate #2 - Rockford Corporation MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, fox- approval of Periodic Estimate ~2 in the amount of $88,059.50 to Rockford Corporation. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-17: Periodic Estimate #4 - PR&$ MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of Periodic Estimate ~ in the amount of $63,965.34 to PR&S. }iotion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Ct-18: Periodic l~stimate #4 - Wildwood Construction August 15, 1979 - Page MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of Periodic Estimate #4 in the amount of ~14,382.50 to ~,;tldwood Construction, Inc ./ Alaska Constructors, Inc./J.V. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-19: Payments to Ted Forsi & Associates MOTION: Councilman Mslston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for approval of payments to Ted Forst and Associates as follows: Project ~/908 - $1,476.12; Project ~/908 - $3,203.24. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Councilman BotHe out at this time. G-20: Change Order ~I - Wildwood Construction MOTION: Councilwoman Olick moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval of contract change order #1 to Wildwood Construction/ACI, J .V. in the amount of $4,332.90. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-21: Change O~*der #3 - Cordova Construction MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Couneilroan Seaman, for aporoval of contract change order #3 in the amount of $733.91 to Cordova Construction. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-22: Change Order #1 - Rockford Corporation Administration recommended that this change order not be approved per the letter attached to the document from the engineers on the project. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of contract cha~ge order #I in the amount of $5,789.95 to the Rockford Corporation on SVell House I01 project. tilth Council concurrence, Mr. Gary Davis representing Wildwood Construction, August 15, 1979 - Page 11 a sub-contractor on the project, spoke. Mr. Davis advised that they had encountered subsurface water and additional costs in dewatering. Mr. Davis reported that the specifications did not indicate this situation and it was brought to the engineer's attention. Rockford, the contractor, states the problem arose from the City's standpoint, however, Wildwood would like to recover their costs as a sub- contractor. Councilman Ambarian requested that the City Attorney give an opinion on the situation. Mr. Schlereth advised that it was his opinion as there was an underlying concern on the part of the engineer and they recommended non-approval then the engineer's recommendation should rule. QUESTION: Motion failed unanimously by roll call vote. G-23: Discussion - Arctic Doors Project Public Works Director Kornelis advised that the City received no bids for the Airport arctic doors project. Mr. Kornelis stated he would recommend that the City contact F. DA to determine if the City's administrative costs to-date on the project could be reimbursed and discontinue efforts on the px. oject. Administration ' was instructed to contact I~DA and work out the details on the project. House Numbering Public Works Director Kornelis reported Glacier State Telephone Company had done considerable work on the house numbering system for the City. Mr. Olson, repre- senting Glacier State, stated that his firm had entered into the project to enable them to more readily locate their subscribers. Glacier State requested approval from the City on assignment of the numbers. City Attorney Schlereth advised that a public heaving should be held and the Code amended to include the street numbering system. Council requested that Administration proceed accordingly. ti. REPORTS H-l: City Manager Acting City Manager Brown advised that he had received a letter from the State of Alaska in which they have had additional reclassification matters, etc.,arise on Section 36 and asked that thc Ciiy waive the thirty day waiting period to proceed with the resolution of the process. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, that the City Council authorize notification to the ~tate of Alaska that the City hereby waives the thirty day waiting period. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. ~ ~i AuR'ust 15, 1979 - Page 12 H-2: City ARorney (a) Union Oil - City Attorney Schlereth advised that correspondence had been received from Union in which they requested a P. OW for a high pressure gas line as when the line was constructed it meandered and Union would like to leave the line as is -- City Attorney Schlereth stated he would not recommend approval of the request as it was adverse to the City's present policy. Councilman Malston suffgasted that as there is no conflict at present, perhaps the matter could be addressed when the situation and/or need arises. co) RE: Jack Thompson - City Attorney Schlereth recommended sending a letter to Mr. Thompson thanking him for his agreement to the negotiated price. Councils o concurred. (e) City Attorney Schlereth advised that Mr. Aaron Sacks was present and wished to address Council relative to foreclosed parcel of land Mr. Sarks purchased from the City and then was advised that a $20,000+ lien was against the property by a bank in Fairbanks. Mr. Ssi'ks advised Council that in negotiations with the bank, he had now disoussed settlement with the bank at 40 cents on the do!!_n~. Mr. Sarks requested that the City accept a total price of $3,800 for the parcel of land so that Mr. Sacks could proceed with negotiations with the bank. MOTION: Councilman Ambavian moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for acceptance of $3,800 from Aaron Sarks in total payment of Tax Parcel 043-170~0600, Lot 126, Section 31, T6N, RllW, Sl~i. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. 'H-3: Mayor Mayor OtReilly advised that he had appointed l~r. Dave Curtis to the Kenai Advisory Planning and Zoning Commission. Council unanimously confirmed the appointment. H-4: City Clerk City Clerk Sue Peter requested authorization to proceed with preparation of the proper reimbursement materials for those applicants traveling to the City of Kenai for interview for the position of City Manager. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Seaman, for approval to reimbursement the City Manaffac applicants called for interview. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. C August 15, 1979 - Page 13 H-5: Finance No report H-6: Planning & Zoning Councilwoman Gltck reported on the Planning Commission meeting of August 8th in which the application to the Department of Army for a oermit to construct a fill, bulkhead, and boat ramp in the Kenal River by Miles Dean was discussed, review of the Park View Subdivision - preliminary final; Parks and Recreation Commission's request for land for recreational purposes; preliminary/final plat for Nissen Subdivision No. 2; and lease application for lots I, 2, and 3, FBO Subdivision submitted by John and Kristine Stoehner. H-?: Borough Assembly Cotmeflman Ambarian reported that at the August 14th meeting of the Assembly, main topics of discussion included reapportionment, bond proposal for hospital expansion, the school bond ordinance and the KCHS auditorium. H-8: Hai'bor Commission The Commission reviewed the Tidelands ordinance in-depth. MAYOR & COUNCIL - QUESTIONS AND CO.~/~ENTS Councilwoman Gliek brought up the subject that in June Council discussed the legal ramifications and possible conflict of interest as oertatns to Councilman Aber in that he was serving on the Kenai City Council and was employed by the City of Soldotna. Councilwoman Oliek advised that she had several inquiries from citizens who questioned the legality of Councilman Abet remaining on the Council and Councilwoman Glick would, therefore, request an opinion from the City Attorney. Councilman Ambarian stated that Councilman Abet meets all the qualifications and criteria to be a member of the City Council and, consequently, there was nothing to discuss. Councilwoman Gliek stated that the subject lb'st came up at a Planning Commission meeting at the time of the Kenai/$oldotna baseball game in which an individual inquired as to what side would Phillip Abet play on? Aisc, another resident from Soldotna called and emphasized that Phil Abet was the best Public Works Director Soldotna had had, however, questioned the possible conflict of interest. City Attorney Sehlereth stated that when the question was asked initially he reviewed the Charter and the only possible item of concern would be that Councilman Abet must abstain from voting on ~ possible items of conflict. Councilman Seaman commented that he could not see any possible legal problem, however a certain amount of "flack" is naturally expected. August 15, 1979 - Page 14 Mayor O'Reilly reminded Council that former Councilmember Whelan held a very "sensitive" position with the Kenai Peninsula Borough Finance Department and there had been no conflict of interest. Councilman Abet commented that he had been continually harassed by a certain individual on Council relative to his having a possible conflict of interest for some time PF, RSONS PI~SENT NOT SCHEDULED TO BP. HEARD NON]~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at h 15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, "~Sue C. Peter, City Clerk SEGMENTS FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 1979 Item F-4 Councilman Seaman: I'd like to move for the reconsideration of the Carter lease in regard to Mukluk ...... Mayor O'Reilly: Okay. The motion is in order because the--- within a reason- able amount of time of the previous action of the council. Do we have a second to the motion? Councilman Bailie - I will second. Mayor O'Reilly: Okay. Discussion on the motion to reconsider? Ready for the vote? Clerk will read the role. Council passed the motion, Glick voted no. O'Retlly: Okay. Councilman Seaman ...... (cut off) O'Reilly: con~nents you wish to offer the council? Seaman:After doing some thinking, talking, research, etc. and (I can't figure out where to start) I was under the impression when we voted on this before that Mr. Carter was asking $175,000 for the building. Well now I found out that he's lowered his offer down to $$38,000 and the thing that bothering me is if we go for the new building as we voted before it's going to leave us this winter without anything, I'm afraid. This is why I was bringing this matter back up. O'Rellly: Okay. Could we hear from the public work director, ,l, nderstand the public works director doesn't make a decision on this matter, council does. But exactly how the building was used last year, your current appraisal of it-the building-and how you can see the operation of the public works department with that facility in use. I'm sorry, Councilwoman Glick. Glick: Before you consent to that, were we considering purchase? a lease or a O'Reilly: I think the motion was to purchase. Glick: I thought we were reconsidering the lease. O'Reilly: I'm sorry. You're quite correct, councilwoman. I apologize. Then it was passed affirmatively to lease the building or to ask for a pro- posal to lease - yes. So we're dealing with the motion that was passed, was to ask for a lease of the building, I believe, starting October l, 1979 and running for six months. Seaman: Yes, ............ O'Retlly: So that's the matter that's under consideration. Ambarian: Mr. Mayor. O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I believe that that's not the full motion. I'll tell you that -2- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Ambarian (contd): this is the reason why if you read the full motion I think you'll understand the reason for reconsideration. O'Reilly: I think at this point the chair better have the full motion read. Peter: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick that administration be instructed to renegotiate the lease on the Mukluk facil- ity starting October 1 through March 1 and proceed with the necessary paper work for funding for a new warm storage facility to be placed in the vicinity of our present shop area. O'Reilly: So that is now the matter being brough to the council for recon- sideration. Seaman: Are you directing that to me? I was Just thinking yes and no. I was under the whole vmong impression because when Mr. Carter wote his letter he had only referred to Dec. l, I believe, or December 31st, as far as his willingness to lease the building. So it, I think it was Councilman Malston that suggested asking him about a six month lease. My thinking is that I don't think he's going to approve it and we think we ought to seriously discuss this to see about buying ...... This was the reason I brought this back up. O'Reilly: Okay. Councilman Ambarian. Ambartan: I believe that legally or to follow Robert's Rule of Order because of the affirmative votes for reconsideration we do need to discuss the Mukluk building again because of this part of the motion that was passed at last council meeting and the next vote after discussion the part of the motion is going to be- the vote is going to be again on the motion that was made last meeting, with tsntructions to purchase- with instructions to apply for funding of a new structure. This is what the motion for reconsideration is about. O'Retlly: What I'm trying-- Ambarian: So that a negative vote on the same motion that was made last meet- ing would be on the floor but for discussion on whether to purchase the Mukluk building or not. In other words, the next vote is going to be what are we-- whether it's going to be on the same motion that was made last council meeting. After discussion of the ....... , if I'm correct. O'Reilly: I think I can see what Councilman Ambarian is getting at, but what I'm trying to get at is the point of discussion that I think Councilman Seaman wishes to bring out and in discussing that I could say that we are in the position that we would have to vote to reaffirm the motion last time or vote negatively with regard to open up the entire matter. Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: My point is that because of the affirmative reconsideration vote that the matter is back on the table for discussion before the next vote on last week's motion. O'Reilly: I'm in the same area you are. Ambarian: So that we need to discuss the Mukluk building, we need to discuss everyting that was discussed last meeting again. -3- CITY cour~c IL August 15, 1979 O'Reilly: That's what I---I'm in the same area. Ambarian: Thank you. O'Retlly: Then that's what I'm saying, is that we could discuss lease, sale, purchase or whatever. We'll terminate where we're at. Seaman: So we're Just-we're going to start right back from before we voted last time, now. O'Reilly: Right. Gltck: First off. regards to lease. Councilwoman Glick. We asked the administration to contact Mr. Carter with Was that done? Brown: Yes, it was. Glick: Do we have any comnunication? Brovm: He said he needed a few days to think about it and would get back with me and he hasn't done that yet. Gltck: Okay. I widely disagree with councilman Ambarian in that the motion .was a two part motion, l) To have Mr. Carter contacted with regards to a six month's lease. 2) To direct adminstration to look into developing funds towards purchase of a building. The motion tonight was to reconsider the Mukluk lease. Now I would ask for a legal ruling on whether we're discussing one part or two parts. We only specify the Mukluk lease, we did not, in the motion, specify Mukluk lease and the direction to the administration. I know what the motion was from the last meeting but the motion tonight was just to reconsider the Mukluk lease. O'Reilly: Just a second, I want to take a look at the minutes. (Inaudible discussion) O'Retlly: Okay. Councilwoman Glick, you are quite correct. In fact the motion last time covered two subjects and probably last meeting we should have divided the question. We didn't do that, however, and I interpreted it .... I'll point out to Councilman Seaman that---I interpreted Councilman Seaman's motion to reconsider to cover the motion which covered these two subjects. Glick: But that was not what was requested to be added to the agenda. It only specified the Mukluk lease. I was just asking what the legalities of it is. O'Reilly: Well .... Glick: I'm not trying to cause disruption, I'm just tring to make sure that we're getting this thing right. Ambarian: Mr. Mayor. O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. CITY CUU~L~L August 15, 1979 Ambarian: Could we possible ask the maker of the motion and the person that seconded the motion to withdraw their motion and they may, if they wish to re- phrase it? O'Retlly: I do so, the motion, Councilman Seaman, that admi~ration be in- structed to enter a lease on the Mukluk facilities starting Oct. 1 through March 1 and proceed with the necessary paperwork for funding for a new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity of our present shop area. Is that the motion that you wish to have reconsidered? (Inaudible) O'Retlly: that administration be instructed to enter into a lease on the Mukluk facilities starting Oct. 1 through March 1 and proceed with the necessary paper- work for funding for a new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity of the present shop area. Seaman: Yes, sir. I was referring to the whole motion. Maybe I could re- phrase it a little bit. Reconsideration for the Carter lease and the directive to the City Manager, with regard to the funding that he was supposed to check in on. O'Retlly: Maybe I didn't catch that. Did you second the motion? (Inaudible) O'Retlly: Clerk asks that you restate it. Seaman: I would move for the reconsideration of the Carter lease and the directive to the City Manager in reference to the paperv~ork for funding of the new warm storage building. O'Reilly: That's approved by a second? Man X: Yes. O'Retlly: Okay. Clerk, call the roll. Council passed the motion, Glick voted no. O'Reilly: Okay. Now I interpret that we are at the stage where the discussion preceding - we're at the same stage as we were when we - prior to the making of that motion last time. Namely that we can discuss all aspects of the Mukluk building and certainly all aspects of the proceeding with the necessary paper- work, so we'll have discussion on that matter, on those matters. Seaman: Okay, start back. In the research I've done, the problem that I feel vie're going to be faced with this winter in regards to trying to get the fund- ing for a new building. (Number l) Number 2, we still haven't decided where vm want to put it. Mr. Carter has made a proposal to this City for $138,000 for the building. Right now his lease is good till 9-1-80. He had applied back in, I believe it was February for an extended lease, which has never been answered, and according to what I can find out, the new building is going to cost us around $1go,o00 to $200,000, $220,000 at this time. By the time we get around to building it, it is probably going to be more. And, according to- also according to what I can find out, the biggest objections that we've had F CITY COUNCIL August i~, 1979 (contd): was to the big doors in the building. And it looks like it would be around SlO,O00 to $15,000 probably to replace the doors and insulate it. The building§ tall enough, I think it could be utilized with the second story for storage, etc. I just feel that right now it would be a good move to Just go ahead and see about buying the building. O'Reilly: Councilman Baiiie. Bail,e: Could we hear from the director of public works on this ............ and what his recommendations are? O'Reilly: Mr. Kornelis. Kornelis: (Inaudible) O'Reilly: Can you be so kind as to Mr. Kornelis: I didn't bring all the material that I had last time it was on the agenda last time so I dug into it, but I didn't know it was going to be brought up tonight. I can remember some of the things I brought. If the council remembers, I was asked on two different occasions to go out and get some costs on buldings, and I brought those to the public works committee each time, in fact quite a few times. I did a set of specifications that were relatively close to, well, fairly close to the Mukluk building except for the size, the size is a little bit larger than what we actually need. And-not much, but a little bit. We might, the quotations we asked for I believe was for 40 by 120 foot building, which is pretty comparable to what we have. I received quotes of $120,000 and $139,000. I don't have those with me now. Those are the quotations that I got. Just to bring up some of the points I brought up last time, I'm very much in favor of leasing this building, but I'm not - not on a temporary basis, but I'm not in favor of purchasing it, mainly because of the inconvenience that we have in operations. As I pointed out last time if we pieces of equipment in the Mukluk building, it's going to require two people to get that piece of equipment use to be made over at the shop area. Our crews get lined out with their work and will take 2 people, the operator and somebody in a pickup to take him over there and pick up the piece of equipment - say, l0 minutes - and 15 minutes there to get it started, get it running, make sure it's operable and then l0 minutes (say l0 minutes) to get the pickup driver to get back, probably longer for the piece of equipment. Totaling that, l0 and l0 and 15 come up to 35 minutes. That's an hour's down time, or an hour's time could be spent doing other things at the shop. Another problem I brought out is that we're continually, always doing something on our equipment. Mechanics, especially in the wintertime. Mechanics are always working on them. Maybe a windshield wiper, maybe a bulb, and maybe - it could be anything, a number of small things. Springs come loose, break, and we're always having problems with wings. It's a never-ending battle, alot of things are very small, things that a mechanic may have a piece of equipment in the shop working on it and he'd run over to the warm storage building. Ideally the location would be next to our shop where we could run over and see what the problem is, if it's a windshield wiper or something like that, we would be right there with the parts. He could run back over, get the parts and get back to the tools. The ideal situation would be for us to have the building over there in our present shop erea. I know there's some talk of moving our whole facilities over to our tool buildings or a -6- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Kornelis(contd): quonset hut and I guess that whole area over to the but I don't see that of course in the near future be- cause of the cost. As far as the Mukluk building itself, it was a wel- come relief last year. We used a good portion of the building for storing sand, which we had never had the opportunity to do last year, because we had to have the facility to do that. We had I think about 20 loads of sand in there, 200 yards, maybe more, somewhere in that area. A good portion of the buildinq of course, isn't used because there's offices in there and we didn't use the offices or the bathrooms or parts or anything like that. can't at this time think of some of the items we had in there last year. We had an emergency generator in there, of course we didn't use it except in emergencies which we had very few last year. The sand, I think we kept the backhoe in there part of the time-which we didn't use except for emergencies and I don't believe we used it last year except for one instance when we had to dig some frost to get down to a well-box. And every once in a while we'd park the sander-truck in there when we were loading sand and we'd leave it there overnight. But again, my biggest problem is convenience of it. It also took us (Councilman Seaman mentioned the doors that really needed some work on them). I had constant complaints, it always took at least guys, usually 3 guys and a loader just to open the doors, we always managed it, but they're not very desirable for sliding-type doors. But I'm sure that that can be fixed with some type of very-high overhead doors. Are there any other questions? It's just my preference, gentlemen, you know it's up to you. It's your decision. Bailie: I'd like to ask, you do not recommend it, right? Kornelis: That's correct. Bailie: In other words, what I'd like to get out of you, you do not reco~end it, right? Kornelts: Right It was not located in the right area .............. structurally, I think you made something on that, ............ , right? Kornelis: I don't remember that, structurally - no, I don't remember any- thing about moving it. I suppose it could be moved, but I didn't look into it. I dont't know whether it would pay to move the building. I know we were looking at moving that one building one time from Fairbanks to here and it was - ! can't remember - $50,000, something like that, to move it. I can't remember, but that was a building that was a fold-down ...... pulled away. Bailie: (Inaudible) What was your estimate to bring that building up to what the City could use? How much would it cost to renovate that building so it's usable by the City? Kornelis: I hadn't really gone through it structurally. I notice in the report that the appraiser did, I remember right that he suggested that we'd have to add insulation. I hadn't really looked at it, Councilman, that closely. We were just leasing at the time. I do know the furnace is ...... pretty constantly in there, and we probably would have to some of the insu- lation. I know the work on the doors would be necessary because I had cons- tant complaints and we had quite a few problems keeping the doors open and shut. If we were to purchase the building, we'd probably want to do quite a CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 -7- (contd): bit of revamping of the parts room and offices and things that the Car Company, Alyeska, or whatever the company that leased it before - had (Rent-A-Car ........ that had that). They had some type of parts man involved and it took up quite a bit of the room. We'd have to tear all that out. But as far as moving that, I don't know who would do it, I know we don't have the facilities, at least we don't have the crane or the trucks to move it. It'd have to be leased out, probably MidKnight Crane would be the logical one to move it. And then again I would mention that we had gotten quite a few bids, I'm sorry I didn't bring them. I do have them in a folder at the office and I have brought them on numerous occasions to the public works committee and, they're not firm quotes but they are in the vicinity of of $120,000 to $139,000. Of course, this is just for the building, ..... land. And the Mukluk building I'm sure would be land and building. See, their quotes are just for the building itself ..................... · O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: Yes, I think over this last six months as far as the comments made by~he public works director on this building, I'm quite displeased with his~consistencies from meeting to meeting. :ffhe public works committee has met v~th him several times on the building, Some weeks he is agreeable to the building and other weeks he will refuse to discuss it unless he gets ....... at the old shop. I think if we looked at the Mukluk building for its use, one thing we should keep in mind is that it is suggested that it be purchased with FAA funds for storage of airport equipment which means no equip- merit will be used on city streets will be stored there. I think this relieves the problem the yearly loss of running between the shop and the storage since most of the equipment of the airport for snow removal is going to be used probably at the most 4 to 5 months of the year. I also believe from pas.t working schedules that the shift first reports to the shop where the equip- merit is and then usually takes care of the airport before going out on the street. So that these operators would be making a change of equipment from the airport equipment to the city equipment and probably 2 or 3 of them would be doing the airport then moving on the the city equipment. The offices that he referred to as being in the way are the same type of offices that he has requested us to include in the new in the new warm storage building so his water or sewer treatment would have a place to have coffee or whatever, so that it would get in the way of the shop crew in the shop building. It goes on and on. The bids that we quoted a $120,0D0 now are phone bids, we have nothing on paper. I think it was pointed out that those bids are over 6 month's old. I would bet that with the announcement of LNG and Tesoro ex- pansion and other projects that you're not going to get a building that size for under $200,000 next year. I just wish that the public works director and the acting city manager would kind of take a stand and stay with it from meeting to meeting. I feel it would help council. Kornelis: I would like to say one thing. I've never advocated the pur- chase of this building. I have never in any public works con~nitte meeting or in council ever said that I was in favor of purchasing this building. Last year when the subject came up to renting thi~ building I was very much in favor of it, as I am right now. But I have never been and very diligently went out for quotations for a new building when I was directed to by the council. These quotations, by the way, are in writing. They are not doBe very neatly, they are done - some of the people gave us quotes in their own -8- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Kornelis (contd): handwriting. But I do have them, and I have brought them to the public works co~eitte meetings. O'Reilly: Do we have an alternative for warm storage in the event that the ov~er will not lease to us? What wil~ we do? Kornelis: We would have to make provisions. Of course, we would not be able to store any sand in the building, I would not have r~om for that. We'd have to make some provisions like we did the year before and we'd have to leave out some pieces of equipment that are not frequently used. We will probably have to purchase some electrical items in order to plug in these vehicles so that they could be started at the time that it was needed. It would be an inconvenience, granted$ therefore, like I say, I'm very much in favor of leasing this building. I've not looked into the possibilities of other buildings because we are still waiting an answer, of course, con- cerning the lease of this building. Councilman Bailie. Do you have any idea what it would it take to revamp O'Reilly: Bailie: it? O'Reilly: Council have any objection to. Gintolt: I haven't examined the but~ding from the interior or very closely. I did read the report that was written by Mr. Frykholm, and Just from looking at the building from the outside, I would have to say that there would be numerous problems with it. It's much too tall for warm storage for vehicles. I think Mr. Frykholm was very plain in his explanations that the insulation was nowheres near what should be required of a building in this day and age, especially if we're concerne? with warm storage. You're talking about minus 20o temperatures even if you re able to keep it 55°, that's 75o temperature addition difference. You should have a minimum of lg inches of insulation in the roof, and a minimum of 6 inches in the wall. And,according to Frykholm, it has 4 and 4, 4 o~oof and 4 in the walls. So I have not looked at it, but Judging by what I've seen from the exterior of the building and seen from Frykholm's report I would say that it requires that you look into it very closely regarding the moving of the building, whether you would be pay- ing more in the long run to purchase it for $138,000 and to add the cost of moving it would be, I think, quite excessive and you could probably build a new building where you need it for that amount of money. Because when you move a building, you have to talk about a new slab foundation, plus taking the building down and putting it back up again, insulating it, the doors, and with all due respect to Mr. Carter, that is basically an opinion that I've come to just by hearing the council's - all the testimony given to the council - by hearing the problems the public works director has with the building, I would advise that you'd have to look very closely at it before you purchased it. O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I think that 12 inches of insulation on the roof and on the walls (s why we're looking at a million dollar city hall that we are not going to be able to afford. But it seems strange that the building is fine to lease when we need it, but then when we could save money to the taxes in the long run that we're afraid to put some money down and buy the .... thing. If we CITY COUr~CIL August 15, 1979 Ambarian (contd): lease for S25 a month for 6 months every year we're going to be paying for that thing in a short time and still have nothing to show for it. I just think that somebody is not using their calculator properly. Gtntoli: I just have to object to his comments on the cost of the city halt and relate it to anything I might do. I will say this, that regarding in- sulation, sir, that if you look at the uniform building code and the tax rate 1975 regulations, you are obligated to put 12 inches of insulation in the ceiling, and 6 in the wall. If you were a registered ..... or architect, perhaps you would know. O'Reilly: Councilman Seaman. Seaman: I've got one question. We keep assuming that we're going to have this building forever, if we was to go ahead and say,purchase the building, does that stop us from pursuing trying to get another building over here and selling this thing? Do you seewhat I'm saying? Or do we just get one grant and that's it, forever and ever? Brown: I honestly don't know. The FAA - if you already had warm storage I'm not sure what FAA's approach would be then. Seaman: Well, that's what I was wondering Brown: I really don't know the answer. I can see O'Reilly: Councilman Malston. Malston: Well, I thinkmyquestion was already answered. O'Retlly: Kornelts. Kornelts: One thing I left out John Wise did put in a pre-application before this building ...... for council approval and I can't tell you the exact status at this time but it still is in the mill. We have 3 grant applications that are in the FAA. One is the purchase of the building- warm storage building, and the other one ..... discussion tonight for the purchase of a generator, and the third thing is the airport storage (inaudible) Bro~n: On the warm storage the letter came from FAA today around 4:00 and {inaudible) so the answer may be in terms of - I do know that they suggested that we buy the shop at 66% of what we paid for it, I believe it was, and then they would pursue using next year's budget for warm storage. It's in the works, it appears to get funds after Sept. 3D for warm storage. O'Reilly: Councilman Abet. Abet:. Well, to begin with {inaudible) Everybody's aware of the problem we have with FAA trying to {inaudible). ~e have a grant app in. {inaudible) to begin with, which has never been settled, which undoubtedly (inaudible) We don't know at this point in time (inaudible) This has been going on now for a number of years and still not straightened out. (inaudible) We do not have adequate storage for equipment (inaudible) (Councilman Abet did not have his microphone on) 10- August 15, 1979 O'Reilly: Councilman Malston. Malston: In answer to councilman Abet, I think that's what we tried to do last meeting, was to try to get off dead center. I'm looking at this right now and according to what Keith told us, we leased the Mukluk building for $2500 a month for 6 months last winter. We kept sand in it, we kept the backhoe in it, and occasionally the sand truck. I'm beginning to question whether we even ne.e~, a building. Man X: In reference to that, I think that there was a misunderstanding, possibly. What our public works director was saying was about what equip- ment was stored, and Ambarian: Mr. Mayor. O'Rellly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambartan: Councilman Malston, I believe that since last winter we have received snow removal equipment for the airport that was not here last winter, and this is probably whywe are under the impression that the build- ing was under-used. And I believe that we do need warm storage for the equipment that has been received since last year and that building, I don't think, will be adequate for the airport equipment that is assigned to the airport that we have now. O'Rellly: Councilman Seaman. Seaman: Well, I'd just like to make one con~nent. We keep hearing about the time spent going over to the building and dragging equipment back to the shop, and I'd just like to ask what, in regards to man-hours, is going to take longer - getting the equipment started in the cold, or just keeping it run- ntng? Because we're only talking 4 or 5 months probably, anyway, and the rest of the time it's just sitting idle, but if it's sitting out in the shop out in the cold, I'm sure that it would take alot longer just to get the stuff running than it will ever for the maintenance on it. O'Reilly: Yes. Mr. Carter, do you want to make a ...... we've never heard from him. O'Reilly: Any objections from the council? Mr. Carter, perhaps you'd care to offer something that could help in our deliberations. (instructions on use of the microphone) Mr. Carter: Mr. Mayor, members of council. While I digest some of the comments that have been made, maybe I could present another side of the picture, one that we've been confronted with, and I say "we" - the building's been referred to as Mukluk building, and the Carter building, etc.; it's really owned by Peninsula Enterprises,I'm just one of the members of that particular corpor- ation. I guess what I want to say is that starting as late as last spring, or as early as last spring, we had discussions about the city having a require- ment for that particular building. One of the things that was brought up was that it was in a clear zone and might interfere with the glide slope approach to the runway. Another thing that was brought up, would the FAA fund for used buildings or was it strictly always for new buildings. Those things were explored and it was found that - yes, the building was in a clear zone ll - CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Mr. Carter {contd): but did not interfere with the glide zone. Many build- ings are built in a clear zone, and the fact - I believe - in your airport master plan that the area shown as light industrial, to be used for light industrial. As far as the purchase of used buildings, the FAA said there was no objections to that as long as it met a particular requirement. Going on a little further, the city had a requirement to lease the building which they did for 6 months. Then there was further discussions about - well, if the city can lease the building, have a requ)rement to lease the buildqng, that maybe the city has a requirement to purchase the building. So I went out and I had an appraiser come in and appraise the building, and it was appraised at $208,00D on a lease fee-simple or a replacement cost of $145,000. My offer to the city was at $175,000, and what I did - I just split the diff- erence between the fee-simple and the replacement cost, and came up with $175,000. At the time the appraiser was here, he noted that the lease on the land was up in Sept. 1980. (Tape change) Mr. Carter (contd): --- to do a proper appraisal we felt that we should check into the policy of the city in relation to giving extended leases. He did, in fact, talk to the city attorney and was ~nformed that, yes, it was the policy and that there was probably no problem getting an extended lease. So based on that, he did his appraisal. On Feb. 15 I did submit a letter to the city asking for a renewal of the lease. That was Feb. 15 of this year, it's now August, and I have not received a response from the city on this parti- cular thing. Bailie: The land lease. Mr. Carter: On the land lease. Having not received, and also at that time we did submit with the letter a check for $708.00, which was for the next quarterly payment which, according to your lease, when you apply for extended lease or a new lease, you do submit that next quarter funds. The city did, in fact, deposit the check, so I felt that maybe I was expecting a response or, if nothing else, that the city was still actively considering purchasing the building. In March, was when I submitted - On March 23 I did submit to the city a letter offerring to sell the building to the city for $175,000. I ~uess I could say officially I have not received no correspondence on that letter yet from the city. But there have been discussions, active discussions, on the city interested in the building and possible purchase, so to me it was nothing to get excited about. I feel that the city was active considering purchase of the building because in May, I believe, you expended between $700 and $800 to get an appraisal on that particular building, which again is an indication to me that you must be interested in the building. In July you received the appraisal, which the building was appraised at $138,000. Then I submitted a letter on July 29 saying since the appraisal turned out that way for the city that Peninsula Enterprises would accept $138,00D for the building. With all due respect for the acting city manager, I must tell you that on July 12 in one of the telephone conversations, that he did tell me that the public works director felt that that building was satisfactory and that was the way for the city to go. Now, I am not that mean that I wouldn't tell you also that he later told me that he did, in fact, make a mistake in telling me that. But I think the point is, you have to understand where I'm coming from, because Peninsula Enterprises has been led to believe right on up to your last meeting, that the city was definitely on the track of purchasing that building. Now when the lease expired in April, and it's rJ -12- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Mr. Carter (contd): something that we have to take the blame for I guess, Peninsula Enterprises. We did not actively seek a renter of that building, because we felt that the city was definitely interested. So I guess I could say by not actively seeking that we have dropped something like $10,0DO. So it concerns us that on one hand we are being led to believe that the city is probably going to purchase the building and on the other hand, just through a motion at the last meeting, the whole issue is dead. Now I don't mind telling you also that I've only been a resident here for about a year, but I've been in business here for about 15 years. And we've seen good times and bad times and we've seen it when it's really good and really bad. And I just think we've kind of been left out. O'Reilly: Comments or questions for Mr. Carter. I assume that we probably would be either premature and certainly no way forcing the matter as regards to prospects of leasing the building for the period dated Oct. l, and that any decision has been arrived at, is there any decision that you would care to render at this point or would you care to just defer it at this point? Mr. Carter: I thing I 'd prefer to defer it. Schlereth~ould I ask a question, please? O'Reilly: Sure. Schlereth~as that with Vern Frykolhm? Mr. Carter: No, that was with Jack McCarthey, from Anchorage. Schlerelth.That vlsi ted you? O'Reilly: This was the appraiser? Schlereth: Yes. I'm trying to remember that incident. I think, as far as I can say that, say something about that, I hope I didn't say bluntly that is the policy, I hope I said that that is, from my experience, that is the normal course of events. And I think that is the case, to come bluntly (inaudible) And I know when I went over that with Vern Frykholm, and I don't remember right now going over with Mr. McCarthey, what I would do is point out the provision of the lease as it concerns renewal and as far as I'm con- cerned from what I - my own experience - is that is a normal course to renew leases, expectally with improvements on them. The lease provision does have a paragraph in it that describes how - what procedure the council follows in renewing leases. That is my understanding. O'Reilly: Okay, we have before us a motion. Councilman Abet. Abet: (inaudible) O'Retlly: Okay. Ne h~ve before us, as I understand it, we have before us the motion - the administration be instructed to enter into lease on the Mukluk facility starting Oct. 1 through March l, and proceed with the necessary paper- work for funding for a new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity of our present shop area. Any further comment or discussion by council? Ready for the vote? Councilman Abet? Aber: (Inaudible) - 13- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 O'Reilly: That's correct. Councilman Bailie. Bailie: Would it be possible to separate this so we could make it 2 items? O'Reilly: Would you care to call for a division of the question, that would do it. Bailie: I so do. (Inaudibl e) O'Reilly: I don't believe so. Division of the question has been called for, all those in favor of dividing the question will signify by an aye vote. Clerk, call the roll. Council passed the motion, Seaman voted no. O'Reilly: Okay. Taking the motion now to buy it in order, the question now before the council is that the administration be instructed to enter into lease on the Mukluk facility starting Oct. I through March 1. Are you ready for the vote on that? Clerk call the roll. The motion failed. Yes votes were: Bailie, Glick, Malston. Peter: Fai 1 ed. O'Retlly: Okay, the motion failed. The second part will be voting to pro- ceed with the necessary paperwork for the new warm storage building to be placed in the vicinity of our present shop area. Are you ready for that vote? Clerk,call the roll. Motion failed, Yes votes were: Bailie, Glick, Malston. Peter: Failed. O'Reilly: Both motions have failed. Which puts us into starting position I guess prior to last council's action. Councilman Seaman. Seaman: Would this be the place to make a motion as to purchase of the building? O'Reilly: I would entertain such a motion. Seaman: Okay, I would make a motion, probably directing the city administration to see about purchasing this building, or whoever takes over. (How do I want to say that?) O'Reilly: Your motion would be to somewhere along the line direct the ad- ministration to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the (we keep calling it the Mukluk building, we should change the title) Peninsula pro- perty building. Seaman: Right. Formerly known as the Mukluk building. O'Reilly: (Inaudible) Do we have a second to that motion? CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Ambarian: Second. O'Reilly: Discussion on the motion? Councilman Malston. Malston: I wonder if Mr. Seaman wants to put a dollar amount on that? Seaman: Yes I would, $138,000. O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick. Glick: I am going to vote against this. I'm going to give my reasons why I object to the purchase of this building, and with all due respects to Mr. Carter, I have several coments here and some of them I'm going to ask to be read into the minutes and be part of the minutes. First I would like to say we did lease the building because we felt like it was a necessary item. The second thing, and to reiterate what Mr. Carter said, we received a letter proposing to sell this building to us for $175,000. (Tape change) Gltck: At the time we were trying to get squared away with the shop building outside the present site. However, it became necessary that we proceed with getting appraisals because I think that if the city council had not went out to get appraisals that we would have been remiss in our duties. Okay, we hired Vern Frykolm to do our appraisals. At our council meeting at the beginning of July, we had a verbal quote given to us from between $115,000 to $135,000. The following week Mr. Carter came into my office and he explained to me that he had called Vern Frykholm. Now, I talked to him with regards to the - his verbal figure. He told Mr. Frykholm that he felt like this figure was too low. He discussed with Mr. Frykholm the methods which he was using to arrive at the appr~(sed figure. I had them written down - notes for different methods, but I did not bring them with me tonight because I didn't realize this was coming up. The next council meeting, 7-18, Mr. Brown informed us that he had another phone call from Mr. Frykholm and Mr. Frykholm had revised his thinking upward and now he's looking at a much higher figure. My first ob- Jection is the fact that Mr. Carter contacted our appraiser. He had his own appraiser and I wish the records to reflect my objection to the owner of the building, Mr. Carter, contacting our appraiser regarding his verbal estimate. Now if he wished or question the appraiser in regards to his method of appraisal and what-not, it should have been done after we actually received a written appraised figure. This was not. It is my personal opinion that the chain of events and the results thereof leave alot to be desired. Therefore, I think - Number l,tl~tthe verbal estimates receive and relate to the city. Phone con- tact by the owner of the building, Mr. Carter, with the city appraiser. The phone call from the appraiser to the city saying he had "revised his thinking upwards and was now looking at a much higher cost." The appraised figure came in at S138,000 and while this is only $3,000 above the highest cost of $135,000, it is nevertheless a higher figure. This Kind of action, in my mind, leaves alot to be desired, and I think there's a word that aptly describes it, although I would hopethat this is not the case. Secondly, at our last council meeting, we had the written appraised estimate in our packet. Before council actually had a chance to accept it, discuss it, find out if we had any objections or anything, there was also included a letter from Mr. Carter stating that he would sell the building to the city for this figure. I object to this kind of method. I think that if council is going to do their business, they I Iml 15- CITY COUNCIL 'August 15, 1979 Glick {contd): should be allowed to do it. I also believe that what we did was in the best interests of the city. We ask the administration what their opinion was. They gave it, and their reasons why. But because it doesn't satisfy a few of the council members, then the administration is criticized and I don't think this is right. Secondly, last Wednesday morning at abo~t lO:O0 Mr. Carter, after his return from outside, came tomy office, and asked what happened at the council meeting, and I told him. We discussed the building he discussed his reasons why he thought we should buy it. I told him why I didn't feel like we should buy it. He asked if I would ask for reconsideration and I said "no way." I know that he has talked to other councilmembers and I believe this is why councilman Seaman has made his motion tonight. I think that this building is an old building, it's 20years old, it is a very high building, as councilman Seaman pointed out, and possibly you could use it for storage. But it's a hanger building, it is now and always will be, re- gardless of what you do with it. Of course, you can change the doors, you can do this, you can do that. But nevertheless, it's an old building, and regardless of what you do to try to dress it up,. it will always remain an old building, and you can have nothing but maintenance and repair costs. I also think that it should be pointed out that in addition to our warm storage equipment and while this is very minor, Mr. Carter also has his boat stored in the building last winter while we were leasing it. I object to these things.' I object to the methods that are being done here ~o promote the sale of this business - er this building - to the city. I also object to the fact that at times certain city administration have been put under undue pressure in that when Mr. Brown stated that he did not say that council was going to buy this building, he was accused of lying and changing his mind. I don't think this is right. Now it seems like if the administration gives the correct answers they're really "good boys", but if they give the wrong information, they're crittcised. And I don't think this is right. Councilman Ambarian a while ago made the comment that he thought the administration should get back to administrating. I agree whole heartedly. But let's be open and above board with them. These are my objections to the reasons why I am not going to vote to buy this building. O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: Just a couple of brief comments. Number l, I am not a registered architect nor am I running for re-election, so I did not debate at all. ---- But, at the time that the public works committe visited the Mukluk building, the public works director informed councilmembers that were present that the only reason that the piece of equipment that Mr. Carter had stored in the building was there was because the city crews had dumped the sand before ad- vising Mr. Carter to remove the piece of equipment out. It was not his request or his desire to leave that in the hanger, so I believe that also should be made clear in the minutes for the record. O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick. Glick: I think it's a vet~ low remark on Councilman Ambarian's part to refer to running for re-election and asking for headline space. I'm doing what I feel is in the best interest of the committee. They are doing what they feel is in the best interest of the city. The choice is theirs, the choice is mine. I don't think headlines have anything to do with it, I think it's whether or not you can sleep at night. O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie. CITY COUNCIL Au~u~ L 15, 1979 Bailie: Has anybody got an estimate on the building to see what it would cost to renovate that building or refurbish that building, such as or updating that door, practical plumbing, insulation, heating - what it va~uld take to (inaudible) And ! would like to see a delay if they're to negotiate I would like to first somebody go in there and evaluate that building as far as these things, and if the cost to refurbish it is not too high, fine, then go ahead with negotiations of purchase. O'Reilly: Allright. Are you asking for a d~eect to administration to do such, and meanwhile the motion be tabled to ...... ? Bailie: (Inaudible) Allright, I'll move this - tabled until such time as the administration can go in and look the building over and see what needs to be done to that building so that if it's up to grade now, fine. If not, what has to be done to get that building usable by the city. O'Reilly: Do we have a second? (Inaudible) O'Reilly: Two things, in other words, you're directing the adminstration to do that type of work, and you're making a motion to table ...... Do we have a second to that? Ambartan: I'll second for discussion. Glick: Can you bring motion that's not discussable? O'Reilly: I don't know that. (Inaudible) Ambartan: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of the maker of the motion? Not for discussion, Just a question. I just wondered if Councilman Bailie would like to. put a comparable to that request, in other words, are we going to up- date this building in the same condition the city shop is, or Bailie: How long would it take to get that building in shape, what needs to be done to bring it up to code, so that it can be used satisfactorily by the city for Just basic pueposes. Ambarian: By code of a new building, or just to bring it to existing conditions of our existing Bailie: Make it usable. O'Reilly: Okay. (Inaudible) Councilman Malston. Malston: At our last meeting the way the motion read was that we wanted the city administration to proceed with the funding for a warm storage building. At that point the vote was all in the affirmative, or I wouldn't say it was all in the affirmative. It was one against. Since that time, have we decided that we don't want the warm storage building next to our other shop building, or what did we decide here? I'm confused. O'Retlly: At this point, the main item is ...... Malston: We asked to lease the Mukluk building for a period of § months and I I CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 -17- Malston (contd): to proceed with the funding for a new warm storage building. Now we're clear off center again, and I'm wondering why. O'Reilly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I believe that we had a motion for reconsideration that was the request for division of the motion, and we had 2 votes to reconsider the lease on one vote, the second vote was pursuant to the financing a new building. Both up for consideration, both motions failed. So I believe what Councilman Bailie is saying now is to postpone the motion to purchase of the Mukluk building in favor of getting a report from administration re- garding the cost of what would be considered would be necessary repairs to make it usable. O'Reilly: Okay. Care to vote on the motion? Clerk, call the roll. Motion passed, No votes were: Glick, Malston, Seaman. Peter: Motion passed. O'Reilly: Councilman Abet. Abet: (Inaudible) Man X: Somebody better define what usable is. O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick. Glick: We have already had some off-the-hand comments from Mr. Gintoli. He is a registered architect, perhaps he could go over and review the building inside. O'Retlly: Councilman Malston. Malston: Well, I would think that us sitting here deciding who does it is kind of out of our line. I think that would be an administrative decision. If they wish - the administration can find somebody to take a look at the building, fine. O'Retlly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I would object to Mr. Gintoli looking at that building. - ...... to this council. I think Councilman Aber posed a good question, the definition of usable. The building was usable last year. O'Reilly: Okay, Councilman Seaman. Seaman: Going back to Councilman Aber's statement, as far as usable, we know the doors need to be corrected, and to the best of my knowledge, buildings used such as this one - steel buildings have 2 to 4 inches of insulation anyway. So I don't know what we're going to try to base this thing on. And like Councilman Ambarian said, we've been using it, it's been fine up to this point, or usable. I'm going to use the word we've been throwing around. O'Reilly: Councilman Aber. Abet: We have existing buildings that we use day in and day out, 7 days a mm - 18- CZTY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 Abet (contd): week, that the doors are not that heavy, and the insulation's inadequate also. But we're using the --- things. Now if we can compare this to a new building, what. are we going to compare it to? ( Inaudi bl e) O'Retlly: Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I might remind council that we have a building that's only 5 years old and we just spend I believe over $50,000 in energy grants of some kind to add insulation to that building, and it was only 5 years old. So I think we're kind of nit-picking at the wrong thing here. O'Reilly: Well, someone of council's got to move that either the administration do it and/or somebody do it, with certain criteria. (Inaudible) Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: I'd like to ask the city manager, the acting city manager, the amount quoted by the appraiser, his estimate for repairing the doors. Broke: I don't know that. (Inaudible) Ambarian: I believe, wasn't there a comment made in ...... Br~vn: Yes, I've got the figure $¢0,000 to $15,000 to replace both doors. Now I don't know how close that figure is but it's something we could probably work with. O'Reilly: (Inaudible) (Inaudible) O'Reilly: Councilman Abet. Abet: Okay. Here we go again. Are we going to use the --- thing for warm storage building, or for office space? (Inaudible) O'Retlly: (Inaudible) Okay, at this point the administration, the last thing the administration has been directed to bring us a report as to what it will take to get the bui'ldtng in usable condition, and the arguments that it was used last year and obviously usable. Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: In order to save the wear and tear on council, I would move for reconsideration of our last motion.- .......... Bailie: On the tabling motion? Ambarian: O'Reilly: role. On the postponement motion. There's a motion ...... reconsidel-ation ....... . Clerk, call the The motion passed unanimously. O'Reilly: We are now back to discussions of Councilman Seaman's motion which CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 - 19- O'Reilly {contd): vas to ...... Seaman: My motion was to purchase the building. O'Reilly: Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Bailie's motion for postpon~nent to That is debateable. Councilman Ambarian. Ambarian: When I raised it, I made the motion that Councilman Bailie is possibly the way this conversation is going from one side of the table to the other that possibly you have a figure in mind that would be acceptable to you for renovation which we might incorporate in a motion to purchase the building. O'Reilly: Allright. Well, council we're at a posturewhere we're debating a motion to postpone to a time certain, that time certain being when a report is prepared indicating that the - what would be necessary to make the building usable. Maybe it's in trying to define making the building usable council cares to clarify that we can proceed. Councilman Malston. Malston: Well, I would think that if that were the case we would want to know what it might take to i-epair the doors, to get them in usable condition, to find out whether - what kind of condition the furnace and the heating syste~ is in, and what problems there might be with the plumbing in the building. O'Reilly: There would be some kind of criteria that could be used to evaluate ~at he meant by Malston: Just things that should be checked out. We're going to use the building for warm storage, those things should be at least working in the building, I would think. O'Reilly: Councilman Malston rejoins us. You can put your clarification of a point in the form of a motion if you so wish. (Inaudible) O'Reilly: And you can amend the postponing motion if you so wish. M~Rton moved, seconded by Bailie, to amend the postponing motion to include directing a qualified individual to go into the facility known as the "Mukluk Bldg." to d~er~ine the costs in repairing the doors, chech the heating system, the electrical system, and the plumbing in the building and submit to Council an estimate of such repairs keeping in mind that..the facility will be used only for warm storage. O'Reilly: Okay, any discussion on the amendment? Clerk, call the roll. The amendment passed, no vote was Glick. 20- CITY COUNCIL August 15, 1979 O'Reilly: Okay, the amendment passes. Now the main motion before you, as amended, which will now - Peter: Postpone'for administration - O'Reilly: Prepare a report which is contained in the amendment. Clerk, call the roll. Motion passed, no vote was Glick. O'Reilly: Done. Okay, new business, bills to be paid. Carter: Mr. Mayor. O'Retlly: Mr. Carter. Okay, please. Carter: On that motion, now. tential purchase or is it ..... O'Reilly: Councilman Malston. With council's permission to hear from Mr. Carter. What is that being done for? For the po- Malston: I would say that at this point that this postponing motion and this action that we have asked for in no way obligates the city to buy the building. O'Reilly: Councilman Bailie. Bailie: To evaluate ..... Malston: To evaluate it, there is that possibility, but I - you know - in no way would want it to be construed that we are going to buy this building. (Tape Change) Carter: The truth of the matter is that Mr. Frykholm asked me for a sumnary which goes into all appraisals which kind of helps him speed up in getting the appraisal for the city. I happen to have one on the appraisal I have so that is standard at all appraisals. He said it would help him since the city had put him on short notice and asked him to get it. At that time we did discuss the methods of appraisals and he did say what he - the methods that he had used and the range that he was in. Also, in due respect for Councilwoman Glick I did come to her office and we did discuss these things and also when it got down to talking about the age of the building, Mrs. Glick informed me that her husband, Carl, said that the building was really too old for the city to mess with. Now I didn't know he was a part of the city or the council. O'Reilly: Councilwoman Glick. Glick: He is a resident of the city, and a taxpayer. And when I don't know some of these things I feel that I can ...... for information and I think that I'm not going to get into ......... O'Reilly: Okay, we can proceed with new business. Bills to be paid, bills to be ratified. Ao Bo Co AGENDA KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING SEPTE.MBER 19. 1979 - KENAi PUBLIC SAFETY RUILDING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AGENDA APPROVAL PUBLIC IlEARINGS I. Ordinance 521-79, increasing estimated revenues/appropriations in the 1979-80 State Jail Contrast Fund in the amount of $3,600. 2. Ordinance 522-79, inareasing estimated revenues and appropriations in the capitol project "Airport Runway Paving~ in the amount of $65,000. 3. Ordinance 523-79, increasing estimated revenues and appropidations in the 1979-80 General Fund & Airport Land S~stem Fund Budgets in the amount of $37,500 to provide fo~ the purchase of the City's Shop building by the General Fund. 4. Approval of transfer of beverage dispensary license for Daddy's Money PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD I. Mr. and ~Ira. Cressweil Mff~UTES I. l~finutes of the regular meeting of September 5, 1979 2. Minutes of the special meeting of September 14, 1979 CORRESPONDENCP- OLD BUSINESS 1. Lease of warm storage fn~flity for City of germi NEW BUSINESS 1. Bills to be paid - bills te be ratified 2. Requisitions exceeding $600 3. Ordinance 524-?9, amending Section 40, Title I of the 1976 Kenal Code relating te the Kenai Fire Department 4. Ordinance 525-79, amending certain sections of Titles I, 2, 12, 15, & 20 of the Code 5. Ordinance 526-79, adopting ths Code of the City of Kenai 6. Resolution 79-128, Urging the State of Alaska to increase rafting of Dtstri~t' Attarney*$ office on the Kenai Peninsula ?. Resolution 79-129, a~epting n grant from the State in the amount of $40,200 for an addition to Fo~t Kenny 8. Resolution 79-130, transferring funds in the amount of &2,000/Airport Land System 9. Resolution 79-131, establishing priorities for Local Service Reads & Trails Funds 10, Resolution 79-133, sonsenting to partial assignment of natural gas franchise II. Special Use Permit - Wlen Air Alaska 12. Submission of 8pplteatlan by Recreation Commission relative to Beaver Creek Park 13. Payment to CH2M llLil * Sewerage Pro]e~ts DeaiF, n 14. Finol Poy Estimto - Wildwood Construatton, Inc./Alaska Cenairuotors, lne./J .V. 16. Request for 10% retalnage - Norecn, 16. Discussion - Arehlt~t's p;~0posal * City Ilall Complex 17. Resolution 79-132, authorlztnF. Adm. to go out for formal bids for warm storage 18. Resolution 79-134, trun~fer of funds for rental of warm storage facility P~,PORTS - I. City l~lanager 2. City Attorney 3. Mayor 4. City Clerk 5. Finance Director 6. Planning ~ Zoning Commission ?. Peninsula Borough Assembly 8, Harbor Commission P,LAYOR t COUNCIL - QUESTIONS AND CO.~.~IENTS PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCIIEDULED TO BE IIEARD ADJOURNMENT KENAI CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 1979 - ?: 00 P.M. KENAI PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING MAYOR VINCENT O'REILLY PBESIDING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN MEMORY OF MR. CLARENCE MARCH Mayor O'Reilly asked that all present please stand for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Clai'enee March. A. ROLL CALL Present: Charles Ballie, Betty Glick, Ronald )~[alston, Vincent O'Reflly, Phi]lip Abet, Edward Ambarian. Absent: Michael Seaman AGENDA APPROVAL Mayor O'Reilly requested Council concurrence with the addition of Stems C~2, Mr. Thomas Laughead with Avent Company (Aviation Enterpl~lse~ and O-a - Selection Manager. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS B-I: Ordinance 521-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 521-79 by rifle only. "An ordinance of the Counetl of the City of Kenai increasing estimated revenues and appropriation0 in the 1979-80 State Jail Cont~a~t fund in the amount of $3,600." There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Ordinance 521-79, increasing estimated revenues/approuriations in the amount of $3, ~00 in the State Jail Contract fund· Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. B-2: Ordinance 522-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 522-79 by title only. "An ordinance increasing eatimate~- revenues and appropriations in the capital project fund entitled "Airport Runway Paving" in the amount of $65,000." There was no public comment. OTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of Ordinance 522-79, increasing estimated revenues/appropriations by $65,000 in the Ah'port Runway Paving project. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote with Councilman Abet abstaining. B-3: Ordinance 523-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 523-79 by title only. "An ordinance increasing estimated revenues and appropriations in the I979-80 General Fund and Airport Land System fund budgets in the amount of $37,500 to provide for the purchase of the City's shop building by the General Fun~L" There was no public corrunent. MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Ordinance No. 523-79, increasing revenues/appropriations by .$37,500 for the purchase of the City shop building. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Approval of tran~er of beverage dispensary Ucense Mayor O'Reiily acknowledged receipt of correspondence from Rogers & Baldwin who are representing certain firms who Daddy's Money owes significant amounts of monies. Mayor O'Reilly further commented that though Daddy's Money had been sold thusly the reaoon for the transfer, it would not appear that the City would be within their realm to protest such transfer based upon the debts between two businesses. City Clerk Sue Peter advised that the Borough had still not responded relative to questions of the status of sales taxes, property taxes and personal property taxes but would verify same prior to submittal of any correspondence to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. MOTIOl%': Councilman Abet moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, that the City of Kenai voice no objection to the transfer of beverage dispensary license for Daddy's Money. Motion passed with Councilwoman Glick voting no. C, PERSONS PRESENT SCHEDULI~D TO BE HEARD C-I: Mr. and Mrs. Cresswell Mr. and Mrs. Cresswell were not present for comment, however, Public l~'orks Director Keith Kornelis advised Council that when Mr. and }~rs. Cresswelll~reed to the c~mmitment wherein the City w~o~ld furnishjthe, serv. teeAines to their ~ro?e~ ~~ ~ hook-up fee~o(iId~'~so/wa~vefff. ~ I or~0~s Di~ctor Kornelis sul~gested that the matter be held in abeyance until such time the Cresswell's come before Council and also are ready to build on their property. 9/19/79 - Page Three C-2: Mr. Tom Laughead - advised Council that his firm is interested in purchasing the Lockheed Constellation from Mr. ~/~cNamara but would like to reconfirm some points with the City of Kenai relative to the removal of the aircraft, etc. City Attorney Schleret~''~ advised that at the last meeting of Council, Mr. ~e~amara was fflven an extension to October 3rd for removal of the aircraft. ~ayor O'~.eilly advised Ur. Lau~head that Mr. McNamara had obtained local counsel and would recommend that .~r. MeNamara and/or his attorney appear before Council as the City would not be able to make other commitments until after October 3rd. Mr. Laughead stated that he would get with ~.~r. McNamara and they would try to resolve their negotiations by the first meeting in October and come before Council at that time. D. MINUT]~S D-I: Minutes of the regular meeting of September 5, 1979 The minutes were corrected to read on page 10 ..... "October 3rd rather than September 3rd." Minutes stood approved as corrected. D-2: Special meeting of September 14, 1979 Councilwoman Gliek recommended tabling until the next meeting to allow Council time to review the minutes that were just presented at this evening's meeting. Council so concurred. F. OLD BUSINESS F-l: Lease of warm storage City Attorney Schlerethadvised that the lease was patterned aflex the guidelines of the previous lease for last winter's warm storage. MOTION: Councilwoman GHck moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of lease between the City of Kensi and Peninsula Enterprises for a term of six months beginning in October for a sum of $2,500 per month. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G. NEW BUSINESS -(a) Selection of City Manager MOTION: Couneilman Abet moved, seconded by Councilman ~alston, that the City of Kenai hereby appoint Dale Stewart from Pensacola, Florida as City .~anager for the City of Kenai. Mayor O'Reilly advised that Mr. Stewart received the hilrhest recommendation from the President of the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Abet advised that out of th~'~ four references contacted, only two were available, however, they both highly recommendS--/ Mr. Stewart. ~'~tUBSTION: Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilwoman aliek votinff no. G-l: Bills to be paid - bills to be ratified MOTION: Councilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for approval of bills to be paid and bills to be ratified as presented this date. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. Ct-i: Requisitions Exceedtntl $500 MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Bailie, for approval of requisitions exceeding $500 as listed. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-3: Ordinance 524-79 Mayor O'Reilly read Ordinance 524-79 by title only. "An ordinance amending Section 40, Title 1, of the 1979 Kenai Code relating to the Kenai Fire Department." MOTION - INTRODUCTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for introduction of Ordinance 524-79, amendinl~ Sec. 40, Title 1 of the Kenai Code. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-4: Ordinance 525-79 Mayor OtReilly read Ordinance 525-79 by title only. "An ordinance amending certain sections of titles 1, 2, 12, 15 and 20 of the 1979 Kenai Code." MOTION - INTRODUCTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for introduction of Orclinanoe 525-79, amendint: certain sections of the Kenai Code. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-5: Ordinance 526-79 Mayor OtReilly read Ordinance 526-79 by title only. "An ordinance adoptint~ the Code of the City of Kenai 1979 Revision, hereinafter referred to as Kenai Munieipai Code, and providing that said code be kept up to date by the use of a loose-leaf system ." MOTION - INTRODUCTION Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for introduction of 9/14/79 - Page Five · Ordinance 526-79, adopting the Code of the City of Kenal - 1979 revision. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-6: Resolution 79-128 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-128 by title only. "A resolution urfflnfl the Governor and the Legislature of the State of Alaska to increase the staff of the District Attorney's office on the Kenat Peninsula by one assistant District Attorney and one elerieal position There was no publio comment. MOTION: Councilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, for adoption of Resolution 79-128 - url~dnl; the increase of staffing in the District Attorney's office. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-7: Resolution 79-129 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-129 by title only. WA resolution a~eepttnl~ a ffrant from the State of,alaska, Office on A~nl~, in the amount of $40,200 for an addition to Fort Kenay." There was no publie comment. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Resolution 79-129, accepting a L, rant from the State of Alaska for an addition to Fort Kenay. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-8: Resolution 79-130 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-130 transferrinl~ funds fi'om Airport Land-contingency in the amount of $2,000 to Airport M~O - repair and maintenance - $2,000 to purchase mmway/taxiway lighting supplies for the remainder of the year. There was no public comment. MOTION: Councilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman Malston, for adoption of Resolution 79-130, transfer of fund in the amount of $2,000 in the 1979-80 Airport Land System budget. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-9: Resolution 79-131 Mayor O'Retlly read Resolution 79-131 by title only. 'A resolution establishing priorities for Local Servi~e Roads '& Trails Program funds." '9/19/79 - Pa~e Six There was no public comment. Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilwoman Glick, for adoption of Resolution 79-131, establishing priorities for LSR&T funds. Councilman Ambartan requested that the Public Works Committee from Council review the programs and offer their input. QUESTION: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-10: Resolution 79-133 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-133 by title only. 'A resolution consenting to the partial assignment of franchise of Kenai Utility Service Corporation to Alaska Gas & Service Company." There was no public comment. City Attorney Schlereth requested that the Resolution be amended to include a Section 4 relative to the City's agreement with Marathon-Union Off dated May 17, 1966. MOTION: Councilwoman Gliek moved, seconded by Councilman Ar~bartan, for adoption of Resolution 79-133, consenting to partial assitenment of franchise with amendment to the Resolution providing for a Station 4. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-11: Special Use Permit Mi,. John Nelson, representing Wien Air Alaska, came before Council to request consideration for Wien to erect a temporary metal building to be used for cargo handling and equipment storage on a 150'x100~ lot north of the Terminal adjacent and in front of the parking lot. Mr. Nelson stated that they would like consideration of a long-term lease at the expiration date of the special use permit. Councilwoman Gltck advised that the concept lease application had been reviewed by the Plarming Commission and they found it acceptable and recommended approval. Councilman Malston stated that he felt the special use permit should be approved and the matter be turned ever to the Public Works Committee to work out the details on the long-term lease. Councilman Ambarian stated that with regard to Wien, he had on several occasions asked that Administration obtain a sublease assi~ment from AAI for use of a portion of their spaee by Wien and, in addition, Councilman Ambarian requested that arrangements be made so that the security area be adjusted for utilization durinK the time it is not beinff used by Wien during their Seattle flights. MOTION: ~ Couneflman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, for approval of special use permit to Wien Air Alaska for a period of one year at a total fee of $I, 500. Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilman Ambarian voting no. G-12: Submission of application for lease Parks and Recreation Dh'ector Kayo MeGillivray stated that the Department of Natural Resources advised the City that the lease for Beaver Creek Park could be rene~otiated and the State would reduce the rental from $1,000/year to $I. 00/year. Mr. McGfllivray requested Council authorization to submit the application. MOTION: Councilman Malston n~oved, seconded by Couneflwoman Gliek, for aoproval of submission of application for the lease of Beaver Creek Park at an annual rental rate of $1.00. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-13: Payment to CHg. M Hill MOTION: Councilman Malston moved, seconded by Councilman Amba~ian for approval of payment to CH2M Hffi in the amount of $17,000 in connection with Sewerage Projects design. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-14: Final Pay Estimate MOTION: Couneflwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Ambarian, for approval of final pay estimate in the amount of $16,461.11 to Wildwood Construction, Ine ./Alaska Constructors, Ine./J .V. for Water Main Improvements project. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-15: Request for 10% retainage MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman ~lalston, for approval of payment in the amount of $124,7?$. 59 to Noreon, Ine. for Kenai At .rp. orr Iwprovement Project. Motion passed by roll call vote with Councilman Abet abstaining. G-16: Discussion - Architect's proposals Public Works Director Keith Kornelis advised that the City had received seven proposals and asked for Council review and direction. Council set a work session for Thursday, September 27, 1979 at ?: 00 p.m. G-I?: Resolution 79-132 Mayor O'ReiUy read Resolution 79-132 by title only. "A resolution authorizin~ the Administration to go out for format bids for a warm storage buildinl~." There was no public comment. Councilman Ambartan requested that Administration work with the FAA for preparation of the guidelines and specifications. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. G-18: Resolution 79-134 Mayor O'Reilly read Resolution 79-134, transferring monies in the 1979-80 Airport Land System Budget in the amount of $15 ,~00 to provide funding for the rental of the Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. building located in the Concession Area. There was no public comment. MOTION: Couneilwoman Glick moved, seconded by Councilman Mslston, for adoption of Resolution 79-134, transferring $15,000 in the Airport Land System budget for rental of Peninsula Enterprises facility. Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. H. REPORTS Acting City Manager Brown advised that his office had received a telephone call from Sea Catch and they asked Council consideration during the next budget sessions to waive the personal property taxes imposed on fishing boats and initiate a fiat fee. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Councilman Ambarian inquired why it took the Public Works Department three months to f'md asphalt and repair the holes on Willow Street when Willow Street will soon be torn up for construction. Public Works Director Kornelis advised that the Public Works Department had repaired the holes early in the spring too. H-2: City Attorney City Attorney Schlereth pointed out to Council that with regard to Homer Electric Assn. and the recent excavations ordinance passed by the City, that appeared to be a problem With enforcement and apparently the difficulties have grown and cause IlEA problems. 9/19/79 - Ps~e Nine ~o) H-4: City Attorney Schlereth suggested that Council set up a meeting with representatives from HEA. Councilwoman Glick commented that the City had held meetings with representatives from the utility companies and contractors and then HEA came in with problems "after the fact.". Councilwoman Glick stated that as they are excavating in the City's streets, etc., they should be expected to abide by the ordinance. City Attorney Schlereth stated that he was contacted by attorneys for Glacier State who are reasserting their claims in the amount of $30,000+. City Attorney Schlereth pointed out to them that according to the interpretation of the law, utilities are to remove lines at their own expense. Council concurred that the City Attorney and attorneys for Glacier State sit down and discuss the matter in detail. City Attorney Schlereth advised that as the Attorney work load is ever increasing, he would request Council authorization to contect the office of Richard Garnett to assist in the Constellation matter. City Attorney Schlereth advised that his office is receiving telephone calls constantly and would request outside Counsel assistance to lessen the burden. Council so concurred. City Attorney Schlereth advised that though he has greatly enjoyed his assceiation with the City and working with the members of Council and staff, he would be leaving the City after two years of service and would set his departaire date 45 days from this evening in order to allow adequate time to secure a replacement. Mayor O'Reilly stated he felt he could speak for the total Council that Mr. Schlereth's resignation was received with much regret and highly praised Mr. Schlereth for his service to the City and dedication to the position. Mayor Mayor O'Reilly commented that several items have been stalled such as the sale of the 16.25 acres of land and others. Mayor O'Reilly inquired if it would be the wishes of Council to postpone continuation until such time the new City Manager has arrived? Council so concurred. Mayor O'Reilly also stated that at some point, he would like the Public Works Committee invite representatives from the Russian Orthodox Church for discussions relative to the use of Fort Kenay. City Clerk City Clerk Sue Peter advised that the Municipal League meeting would be in Sitka and though reservation information, etc.~ had not yet been received, she would request that those members of Council wishing to attend, advise her as soon as possible so that the necessary arrangements could be made. City Clerk Sue Peter also reported that her office .~ow had absentee ballots available for both the City and the Borough election. City Clerk Peter advised Council that it was her intent to leave the employ of the City mound October 30th, however, would not inconvenience the City and would time her departure after the City Manager has come "on board:' Mayor O'Reilly thanked the Clerk for her five years of service and commented he felt that she had brought a high degree of professionalism to the position. 9/19/";9 - Page Ten H-5: Finance Director H-6: H-?: I-h No report Planning Commission Councilwoman Glick advised Council that the joint meeting set for October 3rd will be reset as the Comprehensive Plan is not yet available for presentation. Councilwoman Glick also reported on the Planning Commission meeting of September 12th and among items discussed were applications on the FBO lots north of the Terminal, several subdivision plats were reviewed. Also, the Planning Commission reviewed a petition for a street name change from Wildwood l~xtension to Cook Inlet View. Councilwoman Glick also stated that Mr. Nick Miller has resigned from the Commission and a new member should be appointed to the Commission. Borough Assembly Councilman Ambarian reported on the Harbor .Study report which is a disapoointment to Kenai, however, a public heaving is set- for September 26th. Councilman Amba~lan advised that the Borough Assembly has funded the position of Civil Defense Director for the up-coming year and the position will be under the direction of the Borough ~layor. Harbor Commission Mayor O'Reilly advised Tidelands ordinance. the Harbor Commission were diligently working on the MAYOR & COUNCIL - QUESTIONS AND COMe/lENTS Councilwoman Gliok inquired if the telephone polls conducted on August 20 and 21st could be read in the record at the next meeting. City Clerk Sue Peter advised that she would obtain them from Administration. PERSONS PRESENT NOT SCHEDULED Mr. Dan Clausen Mr. Clausen came before Council to express his dissatisfaction with the situation in the 1cng-term parking lot at the Airport. Mr. Clausen advised Council that he intended to park in the long~term parking area, however, when oarking his vehicle, he noted that there were several vandalized vehicles in the lot so he determined the area unsafe and parked in the center parking area (short-term). ~Ir. Clausen stated that his vehicle had been towed away and upon his return he attempted to reclaim his car and pay the towing and storage costs in the amount of $60, however, was advised by the towing company that they would not accept checks, l~r. Clausen reported that the Police Chief was very cooperative and informed him that during the period 7/1 through 9/17, 83 vehicles were impounded from the parking area at the Airport. Mr. Clausen also reported that a copy of the "Impound Report" was on the seat of his vehicle that he had left locked and secured. .Mr. Clausen urged Council consideration that some type of temporary measure be taken -- perhaps doing away with impoundments until such time proper security measures, etc.,can be established. 9~19/79 - Pa~e Eleven Mayor O'Reilly requested that the Public Works Committee address the matter and propose possible solutions. CITY MANAGER SALARY Finance Director Charles Brown advised *.hat there were funds available for moving expenses, eto .~because of the three month period without a City Manager. Mr. ~wn also commented that the condition of the City Manager's vehicle was very poor and Council should consider an alternate either by the purchase or lease of a replacement vehicle. MOTION: Councilman Ambarian moved, seconded by Councilman Abet, that the Council hereby authorize an annual salary of $40,000 for the City Manager plus a $5,000 maximum moving allowance and, in addition, the City will go to bid for a replacement vehicle for the City Manger o Councilman Abet suggested that the bid specifications require a standard-sized automobile as the City Manager st times transports g~ests f~om out-of-town to City funeticns. QUESTION: Motion passed unanimously by roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned st I0:40 p .m. Respectfully submitted, Sue/C. Peter, City Clerk