Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Minutes 03.17.1998 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 17, 1998 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Chuck Rodgers Dirk Kroll Norman Orr Miles Walton Gay Easton Bud Johnson Ken Olson William Staudinger OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Stevens Larry McCann Cal Cumin Alan Hovious Don Hackmann Jason Rittal of Double-Tree,Inc. was unable to be here so Bud distributed and reviewed the project progress report on Phase I and II of the Water Improvements Project. Phase I currently has $ 580,988.53 expenses. The project has incurred $ to date. remaining for project 342,236.17 in expenses In regards to Phase II, both the consulting amendment and the bond counsel amendment need to be initiated if the council wishes to retain those services. The consulting amendment for Double-Tree, Inc. is on the agenda for tonight but the bond counsel needs to be resolved. Bud reported that the meetings between contractors, and the engineer are in process. the city, Gay acknowledged that there are two separate contracts but he expressed his concern over the additional $ 30,000 that is being paid to Double-Tree, Inc. He would like to see a specific breakdown of these cost for the services provided. Bud stated he cannot fully answer those questions but he does know that we have asked them to do all the billing, both for the contractor and the engineer and recommend to Don whether or not the bills should be paid. Gay stated they are billing us for things at the reservoir and to his knowledge~ they have never even been to the site. Larry Stated he tries to get to the reservoir once a week and he has only seen the engineering inspector once. Gay feels they need to be responsible for checking the site periodically to monitor that things are going as planned. The contracts with them say they are responsible for overseeing the engineering departments and he does not feel this is being done. Miles stated that only Double-Tree can explain this but his understanding was that Double-Tree was not going to be looking over the contractor's shoulder. They would just verify that specific work had been done before paying the bill. More discussion regarding the possibility of additional consulting fees. Bud stated that it is not the splitting of funds but rather an additional funding source that w0uid increase our consulting fees. If it is all under one funding source, SRF, then there would be no additional consulting costs. Bud said he will carry Gay's concerns back to Jason. Bud feels the council should proceed with the amendment on tonight's agenda but we need to bring our concerns to Double-Tree for more accountability. Bud commented that it would be beneficial to schedule a joint meeting with the school board. Bill recommended that we hold the Bright and Beautiful Cleanup during the month of May and that we need to get this on the agenda. Chuck stated that they met with Morrison-Maierle and a couple of contractors today. They have a long way to go but the next few days should tell us more. Alan stated the background check on Jason Wells has been completed and he is on the agenda to be appointed tonight. We have 10 police reserves in training and we will need to hire five of these. In regard to the canine patrol, he participated in four calls in January, but none of these resulted in any drug forfeitures. Travis has been needed as a patrol officer but hopefully, he can get back to canine patrol again. Alan distributed and reviewed his assessment of the Laurel city jail in regard to a policy manual, detention training, and monitoring. He said we are in violation in all three areas. He did a cost comparison between upgrading the jail to meet all the above criteria v.s. transporting the prisoners to the Billings facility. He would like this issue looked into before the city faces a liability issue. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Don Hackmann, Clerk/Treas. Home Office: P.O. Box 147 Bridger, MT 59014 Phone: (406) - 662 - 3438 Fax: (406) - 662 - 3767 e-mail: Dbl-Tree@wtp.net CONSULTING SERVICES PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT Phase I Water Improvements Project Phase II Water Improvements Project PHASE I 25 South Ewing Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (406) - 457 - 9453 Fax: (406) - 457 - 9475 e-mail: Dbl-Tree@mt.net Phase I of the water improvements project for the City of Laurel has been proceeding smoothly. Double-Tree's current activities include: 1. Reviewing any invoices or payment requests related to the project and recommending approval, delay, or denial to the council. 2. Labor Standards which includes review of weekly contractor payroll reports. 3. Maintaining project files. 4. Any other activities related to the project requested by the council and/or the task force. Phase I currently has $580,988.53 remaining for project expenses. The project has incurred $342,236.17 in expenses to date. A breakdown of the amounts expended to each project category is listed below: Expended Remaininsr Financial Advisor $ 9,000.00 $ 0.00 Bond Counsel $ 19,000.00 $ 0.00 Consulting $ 27,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Legal $ 0.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous/Reimburseable Exp. $ 4,030.73 $ 969.27 Engineering $ 61,543.85 $ 8,856.15 Contingency $ 0.00 $ 59,210.70 Construction $214.871.59 $510,742.41 -E- I DOUBLE-TAEE. INC. 0 PHASE II Phase II of the water improvements project is proceeding to rebid for both schedule I and schedule II improvements. The following items are of note for phase II: 1. The SRF application has been submitted and discussions have taken place with SRF in regard to its contents and the timing for a commitment. It is anticipated that verbal approval of the application will come by the end of March. The formal commitment letter is anticipated on or before April 15 when funds become available. The commitment is anticipated to be for $5,250,000 maximum. If a lesser amount is needed to complete the project, the maximum will not be drawn down, thus lowering the final loan amount. 2. Both the consulting amendment for phase II and the bond counsel amendment for phase II need to be initiated if the council wishes to retain those services. Both amendments will be placed on the agenda for the March 24th council meeting and are equal to or below the amounts estimated at the time the project was divided into two phases. 3. Meetings between the project engineer and the three low bidders on the water plant project will be taking place. I have asked the engineer to keep me updated as to estimated savings as soon as that figure becomes available and any other relevant information that is gained through those meetings. r?• roj ect Manager • PHONE: (406) 662-3438 D048LE-TREE, INC. BOX 147 Bridger, MT 59014 LAUREL POLICE DEPARTMENT 215 W. First Street Laurel, Montana 59044 (406) 628-8737 Fax (406) 628--4641 March 17, 1998 To: Mayor Chuck Rodgers, City of Laurel Cc: City Council From: Alan Hovious, Chief of Police Laurel Police Department Subject: ASSESSMENT OF LAUREL CITY JAIL I have expressed a concern to the Police Committee and City Council that our City Jail would not meet an approved standard as a detention facility, if we were to be sued for a jail death or injury. In my opinion, the use of the jail represents a liability to the City of _Laurel, if we continue to use it for detention purposes. My-investigation-into this. matter has revealed--that a Jail Manual which sets.an-unofficial standard for police j-ails has-been developed - through -a gr-oup -of Montana Jail/Detenti_on administrators. Although, this "standard" has been used to determine if police and detention facilities have been liable for jail deaths and/or injuries, it has not been formally adopted by the State of Montana. I have contacted several experts in the field of police jail detentions, including a private corrections consultant who has offered some assistance in evaluating our present jail facility. Although, the consultant has insisted that a physical inspection of our jail is required before he can give us a formal report, he identified 3 areas of detentions that have placed negligence on police agencies in wrongful death/injury lawsuits. 1. No written jail/detention Policy or Procedural Manual 2. Police officers or employees maintaining custody of inmates do not have Certified Detention training. 120 hours per officer/employee MLEA (Same training given to full time detention officer) Must be on duty and same sex as inmate during custody of inmate 0 Page Two. Jail 3. Procedures for monitoring the welfare of inmates is inadequate to ensure safety. Physical inspection at lease once every 30 minutes with written documentation Video cameras (if used) are not located properly or out of service. Note: Video cameras are approved methods for augmenting monitoring of inmates however, they are not intended to take the place of physical inspections and monitoring. Inmates must be monitored by certified trained employees of the same gender. In reviewing the above areas, we are currently in violation of all 3. POLICY MANUAL A Jail policy manual can be adopted from a professional Consultant or borrowed from another police agency. It can be done with minimal expense. TRAINING (This standard is the most restrictive of all.) Currently, we only-have one police officer that has received the Detention training. This Standard would require that-all police officers and, p-ossibly all-male dispatchers,-receive.this training. This 120 hour training course would cost the Department $25. + some meals per employee. $150. The Department would also incur overtime expense to cover the officers absence during his training, plus his Salary expense. This Standard would require that we have trained employees, of the same sex as the inmate, in the station at all times while the inmate is in custody. Even with a fully trained staff this standard would be impossible to meet during certain times of the day due to our deployment. ?J Page Three. Jail MONITORING VIDEO We have two jail cells with only one operating video camera. There is a 2°d camera that monitors the open area of the jail. Due to the lighting of the cells and the open area, there are several areas within the jail holding area that are not visible to the monitor. Lights "blind the camera, they need to be relocated. The video monitor is burnt from the bright lights. Needs to be replaced. AUDIO The dispatcher has the capability to monitor the inmates through a microphone located in the jail. The quality of the audio is very poor and needs to be replaced. CONCLUSIONS: DETENTION VS TRANSPORTATION Average 5 prisoners/week transported to YCDF 25 miles round trip 1.5 Hours round trip Laurel to YCDF .31/mile = gas + maint. Estimated 250 inmates/prisoners per year Mileage: 5 X 25= 125 X 50 weeks/year = 6,250 6,250 X .31 = $1,937.50 /year 0 SALARY-EXPENSE: 50 weeks X 5-.trips = 250 Trips 250 @ 1.5 hours = 375 hours X $11.00 = $4,125/year =TOTAL EXPENSE ESTIMATED $-l,,937.50 + $4,125=-. $6, 0 62 Cost to house inmate $10.00/day for food and jail clothing. 250 inmates X $10.= $2,500 COST TO IMPROVE JAIL COST TO CLOSE AND TRANSPORT EVALUATION $500 POLICY MANUAL $300 TRAINING $125 Tuition $6,600 Salary Expense 1,100 Overtime MONITORING Replace Video monitor $350 Replace one Camera $500 Labor to install and relocate other cameras $250 Repair audio system $250 Jail Food/Clothing $2,500 Total Estimated Cost $12,475 $6,062 r7 L. J