Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 10.02.2001 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL October 2, 2001 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Chuck Rodgers at 7:00 p.m. on October 2, 2001. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Lauren Van Roekel Gay Easton Bill Staudinger Ken Olson Gary Temple Mark Mace Daniel Dart Bud Johnson Mayor Rodgers asked the council to observe a moment of silence in behalf of the family of Miranda Fenner. Mayor Rodgers led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Staudinger to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 18, 2001, as presented, seconded by Alderman Temple. Motion carried 6-0. CORRESPONDENCE: a. Laurel City-School Task Force on Drugs and Al¢ohok Minutes of May 31, 2001~ Minutes of August 14, 2001~ Agenda for meeting on September 26, 2001. b. Montana Department of Commerce: Memo of September 2001 regarding HOME Program Update. c. MMIA Risk Management Bulletin: Uniformed Services employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). d. MMIA September Newsletter. e. of Commerce - Economic Development - New Grant Montana Department Programs. CONSENT ITEMS: a. Claims for the month of September 2001 in the amount of $542,020.11. A complete listing of the claims and their amounts is on file in the Clerk-Treasurer's Office. b. Receiving the Committee Reports into the Record. --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of September 4, 2001 were presented. --City Council Committee of the Whole minutes of September 18, 2001 were presented. --Insurance Committee minutes of September 11,2001 were presented. --Emergency Services Committee minutes of September 24, 2001 were presented. --Lighting Task Force Report was presented. c. Resolution No. R01-69: A resolution awarding the bid to AME, Inc. for replacement of sewer main on Colorado Avenue for $22,000 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. Council Minutes of October 2, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. R01-69 A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID TO AME, INC. FOR REPLACEMENT OF SEWER MAIN ON COLORADO AVENUE FOR $22,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT. The mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. Alderman Mace separated the Lighting Task Force Report, item 5.b.5), out of the consent agenda. The Lighting Task Force Report became item 6.d. under scheduled matters. Motion by Alderman Staudinger to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Alderman Easton. Motion carried 6-0. SCHEDULED MATTERS: a. Confirmation of Appointments. None. Ordinance No. O01-i: An ordinance amending the Judge's salary to $22,500. First reading. Motion by Alderman Temple to approve Ordinance No. O01-1, seconded by Alderman Dart. Mayor Rodgers stated that the public hearing and second reading of Ordinance No. O01-1 would be scheduled for the council meeting on October 16, 2001. A vote Was taken on the motion to approve Ordinance No. O01-1. Motion carried 6-0. c. Pavement Management Presentation - Public Works Department. Steve Klotz presented information regarding Pavement and Road Surface Management Concepts. The "pay me now or pay me later" statement applies to road maintenance. Over the long term, good roads cost less than. bad roads, if any reasonable level of service is provided and the pavement will respond to preventive maintenance. Steve stressed that pavement must be designed. Because many of our existing local pavements are not designed, Laurel will have a large backlog of pavement work to be done. Our program must retain good roads while repairing poor roads. Pavement management must be based on finding a cost-effective treatment at a given time to give the desired level of service. Pavement management is a decision-making process that includes analysis, research, planning, design and construction. Pavement management software is available as a support tool to help make cost-effective decisions. Pavement management systems primarily address preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of existing pavement systems. The two levels of pavement management:are the network level and the project level, which addresses a specific section of pavement. The network level analysis determines maintenance and rehabilitation needs, funding needs, a prioritized listing of candidate projects, and the impact of the funding options related to the budget process. The purpose of the project level is to develop a cost-effective strategy for original design, maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction for a section of pavement within the imposed constraints. The project level results include determining the cause of the deterioration, identification of feasible strategies, and the selection of the most cost-effective strategy. Engineers and public works personnel are mainly involved in the project level activities. The elements of the network level include an inventory, condition assessment, determination of fund needs, identification of candidate projects for the funding, determination of the impact of funding decisions on the future condition and fund needs, and the feedback process. Steve stated that pavement management is not a computer program, but it is a method of making decisions. It is important that proper decisions be made regarding maintenance of the 52 miles of streets within the City of Laurel. Montana Public Works recommends using MicroPaver software on a laptop computer for this purpose. The software can be purchased for about $800. Steve emphasized the benefits of pavement management. It is the most efficient use of available resources that provides a method to calculate street infrastructure value to meet government accounting requirements. It provides more accurate and accessible information on the street infrastructure by providing a quantified condition of the network. It allows for tracking performance Council Minutes of October 2, 2001 of treatments and provides supportable needs analysis for funding and the ability to show the impact of funding decisions. Pavement management allows qualification for state and federal street reconstruction grants. It also provides the ability to answer questions from the community, ends the inefficiency of crisis management, gives improved credibility for the city, and provides a sense of satisfaction by knowing that the best possible job is being done with the available resources. Mayor Rodgers thanked Steve for his efforts, and stated that he respected the insight given to the council and fully supported the program. Mayor Rodgers stated that Public Works should purchase the proper software and a laptop computer that is more than adequate for this program. d. Lighting Task Force Report. Alderman Mace presented a report from the Lighting Task Force. Alderman Mace made the following statement: Honorable Mayor Rodgers and Laurel City Council and Guests: The Laurel City Council at their regular session on September 4, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. held a public heating on a resolution of intent to create an expansion of the Street Light Districts No. 2 and No. 3. The hearing heard approximately 20 citizens and property owners who were affected by this expansion. Most all who spoke were not in favor of this project as a variety of questions were asked which did not get answered by the members of the council, city staff, or city administration. As a result of this confusion, the matter was tabled and you, Mr. Mayor, asked me to chair a task force to study the issues and come up with some answers to these questions and possibly have these answers documented for future light district studies. I think, Mr. Mayor, you and some others do understand as I do, that even with this light expansion being too costly and excessive at this time, cities such as ours will be required to provide these kinds of light and safety features for the public regardless of the cost to all city residents. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a great example of that regarding handicap ramps and special sidewalk improvements in other cities in our region. It will be an unfunded mandate for all cities and its citizens to bear. In an attempt to find the answers to rePort back to the council and administration, several qualified people were asked to serve on this panel. We were fortunate to have an information spokesman fi.om a local electrical firm, Ace Electric, and a spokesman from Montana Power Company and two citizens who are professional electricians by trade that were in attendance at the public meeting, who were directly affected by the project. A meeting was held the following day at the Council Chambers on Wednesday, September 5, 2001. Many aspects of the project were discussed to understand the details of the project and how the costs were arrived at, and if there were any alternatives to what had been presented. A few possible solutions to some of the problems mentioned were also discussed and studied. I'm happy to report that I was able to condense a lot of the information that came out of that meeting and can briefly explain it as three different options as follows. Thank you. Mark Mace Alderman Ward II Alderman Mace then presented the three options. The first option was the Montana Power Lease Light Proposal that had been proposed at the September 4th council meeting. With this proposal, Montana Power Company wOUld provide the installation and maintenance of the light district with no up-front costs and immediate citywide usage available. The City of Laurel would lease the lights from MPC, who would retain ownership for the life of the light district. The costs would be charged as a special assessment on each property owner's tax statement. Monthly fees would cover the cost of the lease and energy maintenance for the life of the light district. MPC estimated construction costs at approximately $805,000. The Montana Public Service Commission approved and regulates the rate structure for leased lights. The estimated cost is $23.84 per month for each light pole served with underground wire and $13.39 per month for each light pole served with overhead wire, totaling $11,678 per month for energy, operation, and maintenance. The second option was the Contractor/Electrical Distributor Funded Program. Construction and implementation of this program would be funded for a petiod not to exceed five years. Maintenance and tight-of-way acquisition would be the responsibility of the owner or could be sublet to a Council Minutes of October 2, 2001 contractor. Energy usage would be metered and charged to the owner by Montana Power Company. The City of Laurel would need to hire an electrician with a bucket truck and tools to maintain the light district. Underground wiring would be used exclusively. The total project cost, approximately $4.7 million, would be paid off in five years. The approximate monthly cost would be $78,232 for operation and maintenance, or $127 per pole per month. The third option was for the City of Laurel to create a Special Light Improvement Maintenance District (SLIMD). Municipal bonds could be sold to fund project construction and implementation and right-of-way acquisition. Maintenance would be spread out over all properties with a special assessment tax. Construction and implementation costs would expire in 20 years and the property owners would own the lights. After that time, only the maintenance costs and energy usage would remain as a yearly assessment. The cost was estimated at approximately $12.00 per year per average size property and totaling approximately $7,355 per month for energy, operation, and maintenance. The City of Laurel would need to contract for maintenance, or purchase a bucket truck and hire an electrician to maintain the district and repair or replace lights as needed. Alderman Mace stated that a task force is a profitable way to combine available expertise and information and should be used to develop projects for the future. Motion by Alderman Mace to enter the Light Task Force Report into the minutes, seconded by Alderman Easton. Mayor Rodgers thanked Alderman Mace and the members of the Light Task Force. A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried 6-0. UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: Resolution No. R01-70: A resolution amending Resolution No. R01-54, being a resolution levying and assessing all of the property embraced within Street Sweeping District No. 1, of the City of Laurel, Montana, for the purpose of the sweeping of streets in the downtown or business district for the fiscal year 2001-2002. RESOLUTION NO. R01~70 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. R01-54, BEING A RESOLUTION LEVYING AND ASSESSING ALL OF THE PROPERTY EMBRACED WITHIN STREET SWEEPING DISTRICT NO. 1, OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA, FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF THE SWEEPING OF STREETS IN THE DOWNTOWN OR BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002. Motion by Alderman Temple to place Resolution No. R01-70 on this agenda, seconded by Alderman Staudinger. Motion carried 6-0. Motion by Alderman Temple to approve Resolution No. R01-70, seconded by Alderman Easton. Motion carried 6-0. There being no further business to come before the council at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P'm ~ ~' Cindy AlletC,~Secretary Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 16th day of October, 2001. Charles G Rodgers, M~ayor/¥ Attest: Mary K0~mblet'~on, Clerk-Tr~easurer