Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.02.84 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR APRIL 2, 1984 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. March 19, 1984 b. March 26, 1984 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Wine License Ordinance 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Capital Outlay - Computer b. Mayor and Council Expenses - Policy/Budget Adjustment c. Towing Contract 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Fire Hall Proposal 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve Budget Transfer b. Approve Budget Adjustment - Fire Department c. Approve request to attend First Responder School - Fire Department d. Approve Capital Outlay - Roof Repair - City Hall e. Approve Resolution - Preliminary LAWCON Grant Application f. Approve payment of the bills 12. ADJOURN THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. 13. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approve Personnel Action-Dismiss Employee-Solid Waste b. Approve Request to attend Computer class - Wayne Henneke c. Approve requests to attend school - Park and Recreation 14. Discussion - Comparable Worth MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FIBERS SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS DATE: MARCH 30, 1984 7a. Memo, Ordinance and Resolution enclosed. 8a. Memo enclosed. b. Memo, policy and budget adjustment enclosed. c. Memo enclosed. 10a. The Mayor and myself will discuss the meeting with Tom Dunwell which is to take place later this afternoon. lla. Memo and adjustment enclosed. b. Adjustment enclosed. c. Request enclosed. d. Memo and request enclosed. e. Memo from Jim Bell enclosed. f. Copy enclosed. 13a. Memo enclosed. b. Request enclosed. c. Request enclosed. 14. Memo enclosed. de4gThompsoff.1—..-"w"..dministrator LT/mh 4 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. C) NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: March 22 , 1984 MEETING DATE: April 2 , 1984 CATEGORY: Unfinished Business SUBJECT: Towing Contract EXPLANATION: Administrator and Police Chief to redraft contract and submit for Council review. REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Draft contract - Administrator and Police Chief. REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Stan Whittingham Police Larry Thompson Administration �� TU MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ERS SUBJECT: CITY TOWING CONTRACT DATE: MARCH 30, 1984 The following options are submitted for your consideration for Attachment A of the Towing Contract. Option A The schedule would remain the same as presented during the last meeting. It would be made clear that the contractor would be responsible for all tows. If the con- tractor did not have the equipment to tow the larger vehicles, it would have to be subcontracted. Option B Category 1 tows would be amended to read vehicles, less than 2 tons.- Proposals for Categories 2,3 and 4 and related special charges would be optional. Option C Proposals for Categories 1,2,3 and 4 would be optional. It would be made clear that the City could accept all or any part of the proposal (e.g. Jim's - Category 1; Hook's Category 2; Merrick's - Category 3 and 4) Option D Use one of the schedules listed under options A,B or C, and rotate the contractors on a three month basis. Critique From strictly an Administrative and enforcement standpoint, Option A would be the most attractive option. One contractor would be accountable for all types of tows. The problem occurs with a firm being excluded from the bidding process because of the in- ability to obtain commitments from a subcontractor. Option B would allow virtually all towing services to bid on the Contract. The problem would occur if the City accepted the proposal of a service who did not bid category 2, 3 and 4. If a truck had to be towed, the City would have no guarantee that it could secure the services, and if secured, no control over the charges. The argument -can be made that these types of tows would be a minority of tows authorized. Option C would be a compromise between A and B. It would allow all firms to bid on all or part of the schedule, and the City to accept the most attractive proposals in each category. This way the City would have tows secured in all categories and control over the charges. One drawback might be that no firm would bid categories 2, 3 and 4 without being assured the Council would give them category 1. Also, because there are so many category 4 tows, the successful bidder would have little to lose by violating the terms of the contract. Option D would be attractive from the "spread the business" concept. The language would have to be written to make it perfectly clear that it would be entirely up to the City as to the rotation. There is the possibility of the City being accused of showing favoritism in the rotation. 4 Recommendation Based on the aforementioned arguments, I would recommend that the schedule under Option C be approved, and the rotating concept be further explored. In theory, the rotating concept appears to resolve some of the businessmen's complaints that only one firm receives all the business, but I would strongly recommend that no decision is made without input from Stan Whittingham. I would further recommend that the City indicate in the proposals that the contractor might be able to negotiate a lease with the City for storage space. Bill Hince has indicated that he could handle up to four cars in the yard. Nothing is firm at this point, but that avenue should be left open for discussion. Also, I would recommend that the indemnification language under Section IX of the contract be clarified by adding the following: " The provisions of this section shall not apply, however, to claims challenging the legitimacy of a tow as directed by the City." There was a concern expressed by one of the operators that the present language would hold the City harmless in the event that an officer ordered an illegal tow. ‘ (11. 1411: 4°111-------- L Thompson City Administrator LT/mh