AGENDA
4:00 P.M. MEETING
|
1. | CALL TO ORDER
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3). |
|||||||||
2. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
3. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens. |
|||||||||
4. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting of August 25, 2015, and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of August 25, 2015. | |||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
|||||||||
6. |
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
|||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). None |
|||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS None |
|||||||||
9. | CONSENT ITEMS
All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items. |
|||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Approval of Payment/Contract Renewal: Annual Computer Software Maintenance |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve payment of annual software maintenance costs in a budgeted amount not to exceed $583,784.00 pursuant to contracts with:
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Installation of an Emergency Generator at Fort Tuthill Well located within the Coconino County Fairgrounds (Approve contract with Commonwealth Electric Company in the amount of $506,500.00). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Approve construction contract with Commonwealth Electric Company for $506,500.00, and a contract time of sixty (60) calendar days. |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract Amendments: Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator and Secondary Emergency Operations Center, Business Incubator and Service Agreement. (Amendments to leases and service agreements with NACET). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: An IGA between the City of Flagstaff and the Westwood Estates Fire District for Fire Medical Rescue services (Approve IGA with Westwood Estates Fire District for fire and emergency medical services). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Roads & Streets Operations and Maintenance Efficiency Study RFP 2015-70 (Approve contract with LA Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $197,769). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Approval of Grant Agreement): A grant agreement between the City of Flagstaff and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for Update Airport Master Plan Study with Airport Geographic Information System (AGIS) and Airport Layout Plan (ALP). (Grant agreement for airport master plan study). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Approve the acceptance of an FAA Grant Agreement in the amount of $500,000 for the Update Airport Master Plan with AGIS and ALP project. |
||||||||||
F. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-14: Amending the Employee Handbook of Regulations and Flagstaff City Code by adopting amendments relating to Retiree Insurance eligibility. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Remove Ordinance No. 2015-14 from the table
2) Read Ordinance No. 2015-14 for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-14 for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-14 |
||||||||||
G. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-16: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title I, Administrative, by adding a new Chapter 12, Consideration of Petition, thereto. (Citizen Petition Submittal Form) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-16 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-16 |
||||||||||
PLEASE NOTE: DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS, THERE WILL BE NO 6:00 P.M. PORTION OF THIS MEETING. ALL ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED AND ACTED ON DURING THE 4:00 P.M. PORTION |
||||||||||
11. |
|
|||||||||
12. | ||||||||||
13. |
|
|||||||||
14. | ||||||||||
15. | ||||||||||
16. | ||||||||||
17. | After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. |
|||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS | |||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT | |||||||||
|
4.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Regular Meeting of August 25, 2015, and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of August 25, 2015. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of August 25, 2015, and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of August 25, 2015.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Minutes of City Council meetings are a requirement of Arizona Revised Statutes and, additionally, provide a method of informing the public of discussions and actions being taken by the City Council. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOAL
|
|||||
Attachments: | 08.25.2015.CCRM.Minutes | ||||
08.25.2015.CCSMES.Minutes | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Payment/Contract Renewal: Annual Computer Software Maintenance |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve payment of annual software maintenance costs in a budgeted amount not to exceed $583,784.00 pursuant to contracts with:
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action:
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Purchases are budgeted in the department divisions software maintenance. The overall cost for FY16 is expected to increase by approximately $31,000.00 due to increased CPI. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the recommended action as submitted; 2) Present to Council the software maintenance support services exceeding the bid threshold on an individual basis. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
For the past six years, Purchasing has presented a comprehensive master list outlining most computer software maintenance and support services. City staff’s recommendation is to receive payment authorization as one action item at the onset of the fiscal year. During the current fiscal year we have expended to date $552,435.15 to the various vendors as outlined in the attached schedule. City has existing contracts with all vendors. Intergraph requires a new contract on an annual basis, with its current terms (attached). |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Software maintenance and support services are being acquired from designated vendors from whom we purchased the computer software. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Ongoing maintenance and support services assure the City the latest products enhancements and technical support that is critical in support of the City’s computer infrastructure. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
None. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. | |||||
Attachments: | FY16 Software Maintenance | ||||
Harris invoice | |||||
SHI quote | |||||
SirsiDynix quote | |||||
Intergraph renewal | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Installation of an Emergency Generator at Fort Tuthill Well located within the Coconino County Fairgrounds (Approve contract with Commonwealth Electric Company in the amount of $506,500.00). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Approve construction contract with Commonwealth Electric Company for $506,500.00, and a contract time of sixty (60) calendar days. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Fort Tuthill Well is the largest producing well in the City’s inventory producing upwards of 3 million gallons per day. This facility is the first water production facility to be equipped with emergency back-up generation in order to provide the community with water during an extended power outage. The City of Flagstaff water production facilities rely upon a single source of electrical power provided by Arizona Public Service. In the event of a catastrophic forest fire, mechanical failure or statewide emergency, this single source exposes the Utilities Division’s ability to provide water to our customers during an extended power outage. Our reservoir system can currently provide approximately 1.5 days of water during the summer months without power before we begin to compromise life safety assuming no additional water is needed to fight a structure or forest fire. Additionally, many of our water production facilities are constantly impacted by power supply interruptions during to monsoon lighting events. It is a common standard practice nationally that utility’s maintain emergency back-up power generation at key critical facilities in the event of an extended emergency power outage. The installation of the back-up generator at Fort Tuthill Well is the first step in Utilities Division’s ongoing quest to become more resilient and prepared for extreme conditions. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This project has been funded through the Utilities Fund’s Operations and Maintenance Budget. Funds are budgeted in account 202-08-301-1014-0-4402 $125,000.00 and account 202-08-301-1020-0-4405 $375,000.00. Remainder of the needed funds to be provided by the Water Production Operating Budget. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
2) Ensure Flagstaff has a long-term water supply for current and future needs 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics REGIONAL PLAN GOALS: Chapter VI, WR.2.1, Develop and adopt an integrated water master plan that addresses water resources, water production and its distribution, wastewater collection and its treatment, and reclaimed water treatment and its distribution. Chapter VI, Policy WR.2.2, maintain and develop facilities to provide reliable, safe, and cost-effective water, wastewater and reclaimed water services |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Award the contract to Commonwealth Electric Company as the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. 2) Do not award this contract and request staff to re-bid the project. 3) Do not approve this request increasing the city’s risk during an emergency or sustained loss of power for insufficient fire protection. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Fort Tuthill Well Pump Station is a modern well and pumping facility located in south Flagstaff adjacent to the Coconino County Fair Grounds. This well is our largest producing individual well with a capacity of 1.4 MGD with disinfection capability. It is the largest single water source for our limited funding, and will impact the largest segment of the population. Staff issued a solicitation for construction bids, and was advertised on June 14 and June 21, 2015. Four bids were received by the opening date of June 29, 2015, and Commonwealth Electric Company was determined to be the lowest responsive responsible bidder. A tabulation of bids received is summarized below in the Expanded Financial Considerations. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The Flagstaff water system is very robust in its sources and facilities which are a definite advantage for problems internal to the city’s electrical grid, but all the water services for the City of Flagstaff rely on a single source of power coming up the mountain. The allocation of electricity from another provider or an additional mountain source of electrical power is currently unavailable. Our only power source provided by APS is from a single substation susceptible to mechanical failure, lightning, wild fire, and statewide emergency. During heavy monsoons we are constantly challenged by interruptions in our power supply. A sustained long term power outage or actual emergency that may impact the power distribution grid leaves the city vulnerable limiting our ability to pump or provide any reliable water and storage supplies will become depleted. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Power requirements are significant and require 750 KW of power for most city wells. All available water sources will require generators to be operational in a power outage. Tabulation of Bids: Contractor Bid Commonwealth Electric Co. $506,500.00 LE Ludvik Electric $509,315.00 N.J. Shaum & Son, Inc. $537,904.00 TSG Constructors, LLC $587,000.00 |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Allowing the community water supply to become more resilient when it comes to electrical outages. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
None | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve and implement more generator installations as a continuing strategic initiative to become power independent during a regional emergency | |||||
Attachments: | Construction Contract | ||||
PowerPoint | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract Amendments: Innovation Mesa Business Accelerator and Secondary Emergency Operations Center, Business Incubator and Service Agreement. (Amendments to leases and service agreements with NACET). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The following changes are administrative changes for the Agreement for Services: • Updated insurance language to be compliant with current city policy. The following changes are administrative changes for the Accelerator Master Lease: • The address for the accelerator should read 2201 N. Gemini. • Updated leasable square feet now that the building is built. • Updated leasable rates based on square footage and compliance with pro forma. Rates will be approved annually by the Management Service or Finance Director in order to meet the pro-forma required. • Updated the cleaning of the common space from weekly cleanings to customary janitorial services schedule. • Updated insurance language to be compliant with current city policy. The following changes are administrative changes for the Incubator Master Lease: • Tenant agrees to submit monthly instead of quarterly invoices to the City based upon actual expenses incurred during the term of this Agreement. Tenant will also submit with its invoices a balance sheet and profit and loss statement for each such month. • Updated insurance language to be compliant with current city policy. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The city of Flagstaff received funding through the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) and Northern Arizona University (NAU) for the design and construction of the Business Incubator and Accelerator. The City of Flagstaff will issue bonds which will be repaid through lease proceeds. The financial obligation of the city of Flagstaff remains the same. The Business Incubator will be compensated for services performed and costs incurred not to exceed $220,000 per fiscal year. The Business Accelerator will receive $45,000 in year 1 and increases annually by $5,000 per year until year four. These costs as well as the additional operational costs are anticipated to be fully supported through lease revenues by year five. Financial commitments are budgeted in the Economic Development Fund. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOAL:
#3: Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics. REGIONAL PLAN: ED 3: Regional economic development partners support the start-up, retention and expansion of existing business enterprises. ED 4: Support efforts to recruit diverse new businesses and industries compatible with the region. ED 7: Continue to promote and enhance Flagstaff's unique sense of place as an economic development driver. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, in September 2008, as well as January 2015 subsequent amendments were approved by City Council authorizing the service agreement and master lease for the Business Incubator and Accelerator. City Council approved the EDA grant application, grant award and the design and construction contracts for the Business Accelerator over the last two years. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve amendments to the Service Agreement and both Master Leases and continue existing operational services with NACET. 2. Do not approve amendments to the Service Agreement and both Master Leases and continue existing operational services with NACET. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Science and Technology Park was conceived in 2003. In 2004 bonds in the amount of $61.2 million were approved by the voters to advance the project. The debt is to be paid with lease revenues and not secondary property taxes. McMillan Mesa was chosen as an ideal site due to the existing USGS campus. A Science Park Master plan was developed around 2005 and determined the need for a Business Incubator for entrepreneurs and business starts-ups. The Business Incubator was constructed in 2008 and the Business Accelerator followed in 2014. Both facilities are currently operated by Northern Arizona Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology (NACET). The Business Accelerator also serves as an alternate secondary emergency operations center for first responders to efficiently deliver vital services to communities and tribal nations during disasters. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Collaborate |
|||||
Attachments: | First Amendment to Agreement for Services NACET | ||||
First Amendment to Master Lease Incubator | |||||
First Amendment to Master Lease Accelerator | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: An IGA between the City of Flagstaff and the Westwood Estates Fire District for Fire Medical Rescue services (Approve IGA with Westwood Estates Fire District for fire and emergency medical services). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff has provided contractual services to the Westwood Estates Fire District since 1997. This IGA continues the provision of Fire Medical Rescue services to the District from the City of Flagstaff. The proposed IGA represents a reduction in revenue from the previous IGA of approximately $202,020.80 over the 5 year term. This 40% reduction equates to an annual reduction of approximately $40,404. Two factors are attributed to the significant reduction in IGA terms. 1) The 2010 IGA was negotiated with pre-recession assessed values and an annual inflator. 2) City Code has been adjusted since the IGA to provide a consistent methodology for the determination of fees. The recently approved Lockett Ranch Fire District IGA used the same City Code methodology to determine conditions for costs. (Flagstaff City Code Chapter 5-01, Fire Limits) | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The base annual contract rate of 60,512.05 over the life of the five year agreement is $302,560.25. (Annually, the base rate will be adjusted in accordance with the Consumer Price Index) | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
City Council authorized the most recent IGA with Westwood Estates in July of 2010. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Approve the IGA as presented. Continue services to Westwood Estates Fire District. 2. Amend the IGA and Direct Staff to negotiate different terms with the Westwood Estates Fire District. 3. Disapprove the IGA and cease the provision of Fire Medical Rescue services to Westwood Estates Fire District. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff has provided fire medical rescue services to the Westwood Estates Fire District since 1997 under the provisions of an IGA. The IGA provides general fund revenue for the City of Flagstaff in return for fire medical rescue services for the district. The District receives a level of services that would be difficult to attain given its smaller size (tax base) and Flagstaff receives equitable reimbursement for service without the necessity of adding staffing or equipment. (Note: Over the course of the previous 5 year IGA, the Flagstaff Fire Department responded to 4 requests for service.) | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Attachments: | 2015 IGA COF WEFD | ||||
Westwood Estates FD Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.D.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Roads & Streets Operations and Maintenance Efficiency Study RFP 2015-70 (Approve contract with LA Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $197,769). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Road & Streets Operations and Maintenance Efficiency Study will provide a full evaluation and needs assessment for these activities in the City and County Public Works Departments. LA Consulting has performed more than 80 such studies and has a track record of improving client productivity. Modernization of management systems will be implemented and areas for further cooperation between the agencies explored. Funding is provided through the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization. Contract management will be performed by the City Public Works Department. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The cost of the contract is $197,769. Funds are through a federal grant to the Flagstaff MPO. The process will take approximately 17-months to complete because of the extensive field work and intensive implementation regime. The prospects for improved efficiency are unknown at this time. Real-world examples of saving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually and more exist resulting in a high probability that the pay-back period on this investment will be short. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics 6) Relieve traffic congestion throughout Flagstaff 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events REGIONAL PLAN: T.5.3 "...build and maintain [necessary pedestrian improvements]" T.6.2 "Establish and maintain...bikeways and trails" T.8.6 "Maintain the City's street infrastructure in a cost effective manner... |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Council made no previous decision on this. This is the first study of its kind for the City and County Public Works Departments. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Award the contract to LA Consulting, Inc. as recommended. 2. Remand the project to the FMPO Executive Board for further consideration. The City through the Council acts as the fiscal agent for the FMPO. The FMPO Executive Board set the work program and authorized the expenditure. The City could ask the Board to de-fund the project. The City and County Public Works Departments would continue business as usual or embark on internal efforts to improve efficiency. The FMPO funds would be de-obligated and programmed to different purposes. 3. Remand the project to the selection committee for further consideration. A team of seven individuals considered proposals from six firms. Two firms were interviewed. A strong consensus in support of LA Consulting, Inc. was reached. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The FMPO is charged with monitoring the conditions of regional roads and streets as well as for long-term capital transportation project planning. Inherent to that charge is assuring that investment of federal dollars in capital projects will be protected by appropriate upkeep. Roads and streets operations and maintenance (O&M) is a significant expense for the City and County. Because funding sources for capital construction and maintenance are often the same and capital plans are to be fiscally constrained, it is a necessity to understand the impacts of O&M expenses on the fiscal ability to deliver capital projects. Conversely, O&M needs are increased by additional lanes, new trails and new roads and traffic signals as well as the increase in traffic created by growth. The data needs between O&M and Capital overlap significantly. During the recession, the City and County saw large decreases in the Highway User Revenue Fund, the state gas tax that is the traditional source of O&M funding. In response, the City and County decreased staff size, deferred vehicle replacement and, in some instances, decreased service. The idea for this study was born from these challenging circumstances: How can we do more with less? Simultaneously, the City and County explored new funding sources. In November 2014 City and County voters passed propositions 403 and 406 providing sales tax revenue for improving roads and streets and O&M support. This study was deferred until after that election and is now of value to ensure the public trust is well met. In April of 2015, the City's Purchasing Section conducted a Request for Proposals (RFP). There were a total of six (6) proposal responses that were evaluated by a committee comprised of five (5) evaluators who evaluated and scored each proposal according to the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP document. LA Consulting ended up being the highest scoring Proposer whose proposal was determined to be the most advantageous to the City taking into consideration the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP document. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Meeting Public Expectations: The City and County received a vote of public confidence to meet the very real need of safe and well-maintained roads & streets. Employing best practices within the resources available will assure that trust is held. Consultant Accountability/Return on Investment: The contract is structured to allow agency review after the needs assessment phase to determine if the consultant is performing as expected and that the scale of the needs justify the investment in the implementation phase. Prospect for Additional Expenses: There are prospects for additional expenses in two arenas: Management Software Procurement and Implementation. The project schedule aligns with budget calendars making consideration of additional funds more manageable and will have available an order of magnitude benefit to be derived from those expenses. The City and County both own Cartegraph that can issue work orders and help organize and streamline management activities. Both have stated a strong preference that it be utilized. The needs assessment may indicate areas where Cartegraph is not capable of serving the needs of one or both agencies. In that case, the respective Public Works departments may approach the Council (or Board of Supervisors) for the purchase of a new system or module. LA Consulting does not advocate for or represent any particular management software. The introductory and needs assessment phases will cost approximately $60,000 leaving the bulk of the contract for implementation. LA Consulting's success lies in a very hands-on approach to getting staff engaged in using and responding to the new management systems. Until the needs assessment is complete, the size of this effort is unknown. Further, the needs of the City versus the County may prove to be very different. The respective departments may desire focused attention on one or more areas at additional expense. In those cases, the will approach the Council (or Board) with a budget request. Impacts on Staff Time: The consultant will be relying on staff to provide financial and other data. The consultant will expect staff to be available for interviews and evaluation of field activities. LA Consulting's schedule is comparatively long to account for observations over a variety of seasonal conditions and the time it takes for busy staff to collect information. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Management software, if needed, can cost more than $200,000. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The community will benefit from an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Assuming efficiencies are found, they will benefit from improved levels of operations and maintenance service. Transparency will increase as data and related reporting are more reliably produced. This will also help in making budgeting, staffing and procurement decisions as the likely effect of those investments can be more readily seen. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform - this is largely an internal effort. However, performance targets and other matters will eventually be discussed before Council and the public will generally be made aware of these efforts. | |||||
Attachments: | Contract | ||||
Evaluation Ranking Tabulation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.E.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Grant Agreement): A grant agreement between the City of Flagstaff and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for Update Airport Master Plan Study with Airport Geographic Information System (AGIS) and Airport Layout Plan (ALP). (Grant agreement for airport master plan study). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Approve the acceptance of an FAA Grant Agreement in the amount of $500,000 for the Update Airport Master Plan with AGIS and ALP project. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Flagstaff Airport is an important part of the economic growth of Flagstaff and Northern Arizona. To meet the future needs of our communities' air service needs we must complete community involved planning. Cost of maintaining Flagstaff Airport sustainability requires an outline of the needs, knowledge of the public and stakeholder requirements and methods of achieving those plans. This Airport Master Plan will give an outline of current and future facility needs, a list of grant eligible projects, along with public impute. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The grant award is in the amount of $500,000 (91.06% Federal share), $24,545 (4.47% City share), and $24,544 (4.47% State share) for a total project cost of $549,089. Not completing the Airport Master Plan could impact the City of Flagstaff in future FAA grant funded projects. This project is budgeted in FY 2016 in account 221-07-222-3334-0-4421 for the amount of $600,000. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics. 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan. 9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitment to partners. REGIONAL PLAN: Transportation - Goal T.10 and associated policies, Public Buildings, Services, Facilities and Safety.
|
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The FAA requires Publicly funded airports to complete Airport Master Plans on a regular basis to justify Grant funding. This shows to the FAA that the Airport Sponsor is doing long term responsible planning to meet the public needs. The Flagstaff Airport last completed an Airport Master Plan in 2007. Since that Airport Master Plan was completed annual passenger traffic has increased from 88,000 to 136,000 total. At that continued growth rate Flagstaff Airport should see 183,000 passengers in the year 2023 and upwards of 300,000 by 2030. The current infrastructure is not designed to handle this growth. This Airport Master Plan will address, future parking, terminal needs, public egress and facility needs for the next 20 years. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This Airport Master Plan will allow public impute to the next 20 years of growth for the Flagstaff Airport. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Failure to accept this Grant and complete the Airport Master Plan could negatively impact the ability to qualify for future FAA grants. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Airport Master Plan will benefit the community by allowing them to give impute in the needs of our airport to provide service in the future. We expect continued growth to meet the public needs and that growth will require long term planning to make the Airport sustainable and cost effective. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform; The public will be informed multiple times as to the progress of this project. Collaborate; Members of the public will be on the Airport Master Plan committee to provide public and stake holder impute. Public impute is a critical component of Airport Master Planning |
|||||
Attachments: | Grant Agreement-FAA AIP 39 Update Master Plan with AGIS and ALP | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.F.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-14: Amending the Employee Handbook of Regulations and Flagstaff City Code by adopting amendments relating to Retiree Insurance eligibility. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Remove Ordinance No. 2015-14 from the table
2) Read Ordinance No. 2015-14 for the final time 3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-14 for the final time (if approved above) 4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-14 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
During the first and initial final read the City was proposing to adopt changes to the Employee Handbook and Flagstaff City Code to match retiree insurance eligibility adopted by the Northern Arizona Public Employees Benefits Trust (NAPEBT). NAPEBT Trustees determined it was in the best interest of the Trust to adopt a retiree insurance eligibility policy that was equal for all NAPEBT employers. Initially some NAPEBT employers had 10 years of service required to be eligible for retiree insurance and others had 0 years of service in addition to being eligible to retire under a State or Alternate Retirement System. NAPEBT adopted a new policy that required employees to work for five consecutive years for a NAPEBT employer and be eligible to retire under the State or Alternate Retirement Systems in order to be eligible for retiree insurance. City Council discussed the Ordinance and proposed changes during the July 21, 2015 Council meeting. As a result of that discussion, the Ordinance was tabled. Staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office determined that the simplest and most clear way to handle the change in policy is to amend the Employee Handbook and Flagstaff City Code to point to the NAPEBT policy adopted in the NAPEBT Administrative Manual. Ordinance 2015-14 has been updated to refer employees to the NAPEBT Administrative Manual for information on retiree insurance eligibility. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Limited financial impact.
The retiree pays 100% of the premium minus any subsidy the employee receives from ASRS or PSPRS. There is no direct cost to the City. However, the retiree contributions do not fully support the claims exposure and this generates a GASB liability for each of the NAPEBT employers and it is noted on the City’s CAFR’s. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Discussion and first reading of this ordinance occurred on July 7, 2015. The Ordinance was read again during the July 21, 2015 meeting and tabled. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Option 1: Choose to not have a policy in relation to retiree insurance eligibility Option 2: Choose different wording or format to link the City's policy to the NAPEBT Administrative Manual |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
An employee of Coconino Community College presented information to the Northern Arizona Public Employee Benefit Trust (NAPEBT) during the NAPEBT meeting on January 24, 2014. This employee expressed he was negatively impacted by the difference in retiree insurance language between two different NAPEBT employers. As a result of this conversation there was another action item later in the same meeting where the NAPEBT Trustees voted on a recommendation to change retiree insurance eligiblity to "five consecutive years of service with a single NAPEBT employer in order to be eligible for retiree health care under NAPEBT." (Note: Coconino Community College and Coconino County both required an employee to work for them for 10 years in order to be eligible for retirement. The City and FUSD both had no years of service requirement for employees to be eligible for retirement. The Board’s discussion was to meet in the middle, so the Trustees agreed to 5 years of service.) This information was presented to the City's Employee Advisory Committee (EAC) on April 9, 2014 and the EAC suggested the five years of service may be served with any NAPEBT employers. The information was presented to the City's Leadership Team on May 7, 2014 and Leadership suggested the exclusion of employees who medically retired. Leadership's suggestion was shared with the EAC on May 14, 2014 and it was approved. This information was taken back to the NAPEBT board in July 2014 and the NAPEBT Trustees approved the five years of service with any NAPEBT employer rather than the single employee initially recommended in January 2014. Human Resources created a redline version of the Retiree Insurance policy included in the Employee Handbook of Regulations and visited with the EAC on May 27, 2015 and the Leadership Team on July 3, 2015 and both groups unanimously approved the policy changes. Several questions were brought up by the City Council after the first reading of Ordinance 2014-15 on July 7, 2015 and Human Resources made additional revisions to the policy to clarify what exceptions apply to the five years of continuous service. The City Council continued discussion on July 21, 2015, as described in the Executive Summary. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
City Retiree Data There are currently 88 City retirees on the NAPEBT Retiree Insurance and out of these 88 employees 3 of them appear to have less than 5 years of service. These retiree's date of retirement were between 1997 and 2006. NAPEBT IGA NAPEBT has authority to decide insurance plan eligibility on behalf of its members, including the City. The City-NAPEBT Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") and Declaration of Trust (Amendment No. 2), dated 2006, was adopted for the purpose of jointly purchasing health insurance, among other things. The IGA provides that the Trustees shall:
State Retirement Ordinance 2014-15 on Retiree Insurance does not impact or affect an employee's retirement benefits under the Arizona State Retirement or Public Safety Personnel Retirement systems. Below is information about the eligibility for State retirement: ASRS Eligibility: Normal Retirement for members who began contributing to ASRS prior to July 1, 2011 is the earliest date of one of the following: Age 65 with any amount of credited service, Age 62 with 10 or more years of credited service or 80 points which is a combination of age and years of credited service (e.g. age 49 + years of credited service 31 = 80 points) Normal Retirement for members who began contributing to ASRS on or after July 1, 2011 is the earliest date of one of the following: Age 65 with any amount of credit service, Age 62 with 10 or more years of credited service, Age 60 with 25 or more years of credited service, or Age 55 with 30 or more years or credited service. Early retirement applies to members at Age 50 with at least 5 years of credited service and the member will receive a reduced monthly benefit. PSPRS Eligibility: Tier 1: Employees who became members of PSPRS prior to January 1, 2012. Members are eligible to apply for normal pension benefits at 20 years of service or have 15 years of service and be at least age 62. Tier 2: Employees who became members of PSPRS on or after January 1, 2012. Members are eligible to apply for normal pension benefits at 25 years of service and be at least age 52.5. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. | |||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2015-14 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.G.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-16: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title I, Administrative, by adding a new Chapter 12, Consideration of Petition, thereto. (Citizen Petition Submittal Form) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-16 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-16 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-16 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
During the recent discussions regarding proposed Charter amendments, it was requested that an ordinance be adopted that would outline the process for submittal of citizen petitions. While there is a question on the upcoming ballot to require 25 citizens to sign such a petition, the current Charter states that any citizen may submit a petition. Therefore, the proposed wording has been changed from the draft internal packet to indicate that the petition form itself will indicate the number of signatures required by referencing the City Charter. This way, there will be no need to bring this item back in the future if that number changes during the upcoming, or any future, charter amendment elections. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOAL:
8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
This issue was discussed in general during various meetings where the proposed Charter amendments were discussed. Additionally, the proposed ordinance was read for the first time at the August 25, 2015, meeting at which a few amendments were requested and have been included in the attached ordinance. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt the ordinance as written 2) Amend the ordinance 3) Wait until after the election results are determined 4) Take no action |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2015-16 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||