06-07-2011 City Council Study Session PacketCity of Grand Island
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Study Session Packet
City Council:Mayor:
Jay Vavricek
City Administrator:
Mary Lou Brown
City Clerk:
RaNae Edwards
T
u
7:00:00 PM
Council Chambers - City Hall
100 East First Street
Larry Carney
Linna Dee Donaldson
Scott Dugan
Randy Gard
John Gericke
Peg Gilbert
Chuck Haase
Mitchell Nickerson
Bob Niemann
Kirk Ramsey
Call to OrderCity of Grand Island City Council
A - SUBMITTAL OF REQUESTS FOR FUTURE ITEMS
Individuals who have appropriate items for City Council consideration should complete the Request for Future Agenda
Items form located at the Information Booth. If the issue can be handled administratively without Council action,
notification will be provided. If the item is scheduled for a meeting or study session, notification of the date will be given.
B - RESERVE TIME TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS
This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to provide input on any of tonight's agenda items to reserve time to speak.
Please come forward, state your name and address, and the Agenda topic on which you will be speaking.
MAYOR COMMUNICATION
This is an opportunity for the Mayor to comment on current events, activities, and issues of interest to the community.
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Invocation
This is an open meeting of the Grand Island City Council. The City of Grand Island abides by the Open Meetings Act
in conducting business. A copy of the Open Meetings Act is displayed in the back of this room as required by state
law.
The City Council may vote to go into Closed Session on any agenda item as allowed by state law.
City of Grand Island City Council
Item C
Recognition of Craig Lewis, Building Department Director for 30
Years of Service with the City of Grand Island
The Mayor and City Council will recognize Craig Lewis, Building Department Director for
30 years of service with the City of Grand Island. Mr. Lewis was hired on June 8, 1981 as a
Building Inspector. He moved to Chief Building Inspector on October 19, 1984 and Building
Director on May 1, 1991. We congratulate and thank Mr. Lewis for his dedication and
service to the City of Grand Island.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Study Session
City of Grand Island
Staff Contact: Mayor Vavricek
City of Grand Island City Council
Item X1
Discussion Concerning Residential Clean-Up Cards
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Study Session
City of Grand Island
Staff Contact: John Collins
City of Grand Island City Council
Council Agenda Memo
From: Jeff Wattier, Solid Waste Superintendant
Shannon Oster, Assistant to the City Administrator
Meeting: June 7, 2011
Subject: Review of Residential Clean-Up Card Program
Item #’s: 1
Presenter(s): Jeff Wattie r, Solid Waste Superintendant
Shannon Oster, Assistant to the City Administrator
Background
From 1993 to 2002, the City of Grand Island’s Solid Waste Division provided free
disposal of garbage and debris to residents at the Transfer Station one week per calendar
year, also known as “Free Week.” There were several problems with Free Week for the
Solid Waste staff, as well as residents. Residents were forced to wait in long lines at the
Transfer Station to drop off their loads for disposal, which created frustration with the
process. The Transfer Station was not (and currently is not) equipped or located to
receive high traffic volumes. The Solid Waste Division encountered high costs from the
program due to increased overtime, an increase in other operational costs, and residents
abusing the program.
In 2003, the Residential Clean-Up Card (RCC) began as an alternative to Free Week. The
RCC was supposed to provide a more cost-effective, customer-friendly process for
assisting residents in keeping up the community appearance. The RCC allows residents
two free loads up to 800 pounds each to the Transfer Station. RCCs are issued by the
Public Works administrative staff at City Hall.
The purpose of the RCC program is to encourage residents to keep their property looking
clean, specifically the outside of property looking orderly by offering an opportunity for
disposal throughout the year. The purpose of the program is not intended to allow
stockpiling of trash or other items. It is also not intended to assist residents in remodeling
their property by disposing of construction materials.
Discussion
Issuing of RCCs has become an extremely time consuming program for the Public Works
staff to administer. When the RCC program began in 2003, the Public Works staff had
two full-time support staff available for issuing RCCs; however personnel reductions
have left only one full-time person available for administering the program. The program
takes approximately .3FTE, which is a significant amount of time for a quartile four
program (the lowest priority). The purpose for reviewing the RCC program is to address
the amount of time PW staff spends on the RCC program through identifying
alternatives.
In addition to the amount of time spent by Public Works issuing RCCs, the program has
experienced widespread abuse. Some of the abuses include: contractors using the card for
work they are charging for; landlords using the cards to clean-up rental properties; using
the card as an alternative to regular garbage pick-up; and organizations or groups using
cards. Consequently, rules have been tightened to prevent abuse, which has resulted in
more time spent issuing cards. The RCC program alternatives presented will seek to
prevent abuse to the program while not creating more of an administrative burden on
staff.
The following seven alternatives will be presented for the Council:
1. City Wide Clean-Up Volunteer Event
2. Specified Free Weekend by Ward/Area of City
3. Utility Bill Insert
4. Online
5. Issue Week
6. Issued and Administrated at the Transfer Station
7. Additional Free Yard Waste and Eliminate Card Program
Conclusion
This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to
be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
Residential Clean-Up Card Program
Grand Island City Council Study Session
June 7, 2011
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
How We Got Where We Are Today...
Free Week (1992 –2002)
Intent was to clean and beautify community
City continued this program after taking over from County
G.I. residents disposed of items for free at the Transfer
Station one designated week per year
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Photo of Free Week
How We Got Where We Are Today…
Free Week Problems
Labor Intensive
City staff planning and organizing, Solid Waste (SW)
Division overtime, volunteer labor, Hall Co. inmate labor
SW Division staff basically playing “catch-up” all week
Widespread abuse of the program
Residents would bring multiple loads for free disposal
Banned items such as tires, appliances, etc. would be
disposed of due to hectic nature of program
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
How We Got Where We Are Today…
Free Week Problems
Many would “stockpile” waste until Free Week
Major traffic congestion and long lines to wait in
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Photo of Free Week
congestion and long lines
Residential Clean-Up Card (RCC) Program
RCC program implemented in 2003
Allows residents to dispose of two free loads (up to 800 lbs. per
load) at Transfer Station
Started at 600 lbs. per load
General Fund reimbursed SW Enterprise Fund tonnage value
SW revenues come from the tonnage value
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Benefits of RCC program vs. Free Week
Residents can dispose of materials at any time throughout
the year at their own leisure
Reduced traffic congestion/frustration by residents
Much more convenient/less time-consuming to dispose of
items when needed throughout the year
SW Division staff can manage waste much easier by
spreading it out through the year
Much less staff time spent on planning and organizing RCC
program vs. Free Week
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Problems with RCC Program Begin…
Solid Waste Division –Abuse and Lost Revenue
Various types of abuse to the RCC:
Residents obtaining and using multiple RCC received from
friends, neighbors, family members, etc.
Use of the RCC as alternative to garbage service (i.e.
stockpiling their trash to bring it to the Transfer Station twice
per year in lieu of garbage service)
Contractors obtaining customers’ cards to dispose of
construction/demolition materials from for-hire projects
Organizations/businesses using RCC program
No revenue from RCC loads
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Lost Revenue: Historical RCC Figures
General Fund reimbursed the SW Enterprise Fund for RCC
tonnage value from 2003-2008
Actual reimbursed amount from 2003-2008: $223,228
Stopped after 2008
Lost SW Division revenues from 2009-2010: $72,158
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Cards
Issued
2,465 3,120 3,618 2,934 3,173 3,148 2,856 2,733
Tons 774 1,027 1,107 983 986 1140 977 968
Tonnage
Value
$28,715 $38,101 $41,069 $36,469 $36,580 $42,294 $36,246 $35,912
Major Problems with RCC Program Continue…
Public Works –RCCs are issued at City Hall by Public Works
(PW) administrative staff
Issuing cards becomes a very time consuming program
.3FTE for issuing the cards/keeping track of database
PW went from two FTEs in 2005, to one FTE available for issuing
RCCs.
RCC ranked a Quartile 4 program in PW General Fund and SW
Enterprise Fund in both 2010 and 2011 program prioritization
scoring
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Costs of RCC Program
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
PW General Fund & SW
Enterprise Fund Expenses
2011 Budget
Personnel –SW $34,000
Personnel –PW $24,500
Operating –SW $15,200
Operating –PW $2,600
Total Program Expenses $76,300
Cost of Program (Free Disposal)$35,912
If there was revenue from the tonnage value, $35,912 (2010) does not
cover the program expenses.
A Basketball Court With
Waste Piled 40 Feet High
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
2,000,000 lbs. per year of trash and debris disposed of for free is
equivalent to…
50 Tractor-Trailer Semi Loads
G.I. SW vs. Other State Landfills/Transfer Stations
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Grand
Island
Kearney Hastings Lexington York Columbus Norfolk
Type of
Facility
T.S. &
L.F.
Landfill Landfill Landfill Landfill Transfer
Station
Transfer
Station
Grass &
Leaves
Free?
Yes Yes No No No Yes No
Free
Disposal
Program?
Yes No No No No No No
Price/Ton
For
Disposal
$37/ton
&
$31/ton
$32.50/
ton
$35.50/
ton
$36/ton $36/ton $57/ton $52.55/
ton
Additional Free Programs Provided by the SW Division
Neighborhood Association Clean-Ups
Clean Community System assists with planning, organization, etc.
Tonnage accepted for free and SW Division pays costs for local
garbage company to haul materials to the Landfill
Surrounding community Clean-Ups
Natural Disasters/Weather Events –free disposal for residents
2005 Flood -Open extended hours and accepted 934 tons for free, in
addition to the 1,107 tons of RCC tonnage received in 2005
2006 Ice Storms -Open extended hours and accepted 10,000 cubic
yards of tree limbs/branches for free
Cost $28,900 for tree grinding services
Grass and Leaf disposal
CSOs can use cards to encourage problem properties to clean-up
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Alternatives to the RCC Program
1.City-Wide Clean-Up Volunteer Event
2.Free Weekend by Ward/Area of City
3.Utility Bill Insert
4.Online
5.Issue Week
6.Issued and Administrated at the Transfer Station
7.Additional Free Yard Waste and Eliminate Card
Program
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
1. City-Wide Clean-Up Volunteer Event
One weekend during the year at two or three locations for
free drop-off
Partner with Clean Community System for planning and
hosting event
Volunteers critical –directing traffic, unloading vehicles,
checking IDs, verifying the items are accepted for disposal
Estimated Costs
Personnel $ 32,500
Hauling Charges $ 34,000
Operating Expenses $ 17,500
TOTAL:$ 84,000
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Bring back “Free Week,” but divide the City into two
separate weekends by ward or address
Require a lot of public outreach so residents understand
when is their assigned weekend.
2. Free Weekend by Ward/Area of City
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Solid Waste Expenses Estimated Costs
Personnel $ 30,000
Hauling Charges $ 34,000
Operating $ 15,200
Total:$ 79,200
Include a RCC as a utility bill insert in January mailing.
Require the person to bring the insert and bill to Transfer
Station to drop-off their RCC load.
Show ID with matching name and address to utility bill.
Businesses would not be allowed a RCC load.
Limit to one load per year.
3. Utility Bill Insert
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Solid Waste Expenses:Estimated Cost
Personnel $34,000
Operational $15,200
Total:$49,200
Create an online form for residents to complete, and then
pick-up RCC at City Hall when they show an ID.
Still need to issue RCC traditional way to accommodate
citizens that do not have a computer
Does not reduce staff time or other savings
4. Online
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Solid Waste and Public Works Expenses:Estimated Costs
Personnel –SW $ 34,000
Operating –SW $ 15,200
Personnel –PW $ 24,500
Operating –PW $ 2,600
Total:$ 76,300
Restructure how cards are issued by issuing cards only one
week a year, at beginning of calendar year.
Would require several people to assist during the period for
high customer traffic.
Residents still receive a free program that can be used
throughout the year.
Potentially reduce load to one per year
5. Issue Week
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Estimated Costs:
Personnel (General Fund)$ 5,000
Operating Expenses (General Fund)$2,600
Personnel (SW)$34,000
Operating Expenses (SW)$15,200
Total:$56,800
6. Issued and Administered at Transfer Station
Move issuing process out of City Hall to Transfer Station
Limited space leaves no room for customer service area at
Transfer Station
PT Clerk would need to become FT for issuing cards
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
SW Expenses
Personnel $75,800
Operating $15,200
Total Costs $91,000
7. Additional Free Yard Waste & Eliminate Card
Program
Solid Waste Expense Estimated Cost
Tree Grinding Contract Service $13,000
Expand free disposal to trees, branches, bushes, etc at Yard
Waste Site.
Currently free: grass and leaf disposal
Still provides a free service for residents used at their leisure
throughout the year, while eliminating the timely/costly step
of issuing and receiving a card.
Approximately 50% of RCCs already are used for tree/
branch disposal
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Each alternative should be evaluated based on the ability to resolve the two
major problems with the program: Reduce PW staff time & Prevent Abuse
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
Alternative Reduce PW Time Prevent Abuse
1. City-Wide Clean-Up Volunteer Event Somewhat No
2. Free Weekend by Ward/Area of City Yes No
3. Utility Bill Insert Yes Yes
4. Online No Yes
5. Issue Week Somewhat Yes
6. Issued and Administrated at the
Transfer Station
Yes Yes
7. Additional Free Yard Waste and
Eliminate Card Program
Yes Yes
Item X2
Discussion Concerning Political Signs
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Study Session
City of Grand Island
Staff Contact: Craig Lewis
City of Grand Island City Council
Council Agenda Memo
From: Craig Lewis - Building Department Director
Meeting: June 7, 2011
Subject: Political Signs
Item #’s: 2
Presenter(s): Craig Lewis
Background
The Grand Island City Code Section 31-33 specifically addresses political signs and
provides regulations for the size, location, and limits the amount of time they may be
displayed.
These regulations have in the past been questioned as to the ir constitutionality.
Discussion
The sign regulations addressing political campaign signs have been in existence and
enforced for a number of years within the jurisdictional area. Last year the duration of
time specified was brought into question by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In researching the legitimacy of the sign code it would appear that nationally many
communities have similar regulations which if challenged would not meet the test of
being constitutional; 1). Is the ordinance content-neutral?
2). Is the ordinance narrowly tailored to serve a significant
governmental interest?
3). Given the restrictions in the ordinance, are there ample,
alternative channels of communication of the information?
I would suggest that we amend the City Code to combine Section 31-31 Free Standing
Ground signs and Section 31-33 Political Ground Signs, into one section that regulates all
“Yard Signs” as to location and size. We will need to define the term yard sign to address
small sign stuck in the ground for temporary use.
Conclusion
This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to
be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
It is the intent of City Administration to bring this issue to a future council meeting for
the consideration of amending the City code.
BUILDING
City Code/Political Campaign Signs
§31-33.Political Ground Signs
(1) Political ground signs shall include all ground signs used for advertising
by or on behalf of any candidate for political office or advocating a position
with respect to any political issue.
(2) Political ground signs shall be free standing, and shall not be in excess of
fifteen (15) square feet in size.
(3) Political ground signs may be erected no earlier than four weeks before an
election date, and must be removed no later than five days after the election
date.
(4) Political ground signs shall not be allowed on any public property or right -
of-way.
BUILDING
City Code/Political Campaign Signs
(5) Political ground signs at street intersections shall not be placed within the triangle
formed by the adjacent property lines of the two intersecting streets and the line
joining points thirty (30) feet distant along property lines from their point of
intersection.
(6) It shall be unlawful to erect political ground signs at any time in violation
of the Grand Island City Code.
(7) The Chief Building Official, or his/her designee, shall be authorized to
seize and remove all signs in violation of this section, and dispose of the
same without notice.
(8) The city clerk shall provide copies of this section of the Grand Island City
Code to the Hall County Election Commissioner for distribution to all
candidates for political office and persons using political ground signs
within the corporate limits of the City of Grand Island, or other interested
persons.
BUILDING
International Municipal Lawyers Association
(IMLA)
In constitutional law language, appropriate sign ordinances are “time,
place, and manner” restrictions on speech, as opposed to restrictions on
content. Even a content-neutral ordinance, such as one that simply bans all
signs, can become content-based, in effect, if it is selectively enforced. In
any case, the three-part test courts use in reviewing the constitutionality of
sign ordinances is as follows:
1) Is the ordinance content-neutral?
2) Is the ordinance narrowly tailored to serve a significant Governmental interest?
3) Given the restrictions in the ordinance, are there ample, alternative channels or
communication of the information?
BUILDING
Typical example of Political Signs
BUILDING
PROPOSED EXAMPLE
Chapter 31
Signs
31-1 Definitions
Free Standing and Yard Signs.Any sign that shall have as its supports, wood, or steel columns, pipe, angle iron framing, or any other combination
of material attached to or standing on the ground and temporary in nature.
31-31 Free Standing and Yard Signs.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place or permit to be placed upon premises any free standing or yard sign in excess of 15 square feet, provided however this section shall not prohibit the placement of mobile signs as defined by section 31-32.
(1). Signs shall be free standing or temporary attached to the ground and shall not be in excess of fifteen square feet in size.
(2). Signs shall not be allowed on public property or the right-of -way.
BUILDING
EXAMPLE CONT.
(3). Signs at street intersections shall not be placed within the triangle formed by the adjacent property lines of the two intersecting streets and the
line joining points thirty (30) feet distant along property lines from their point of intersection.
(4). It shall be unlawful to erect signs at any time in violation of the City
Code.
(5). The Chief Building Official, or his/her designee, shall be authorized to seize and remove all sign in violation of this section, and dispose of the same without notice.
(6). The City clerk shall provide copies of this section to the Hall
County Election Commissioner for distribution to all candidates for political office.
BUILDING
Conclusion
I would suggest that the city amend the City code by
combining sections 31-31 Free Standing ground sign
and section 31-33 Political ground signs, into one
section that regulates all “Yard Signs” as to size and
location.
Item X3
Discussion Concerning City Dewatering Wells
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Study Session
City of Grand Island
Staff Contact: John Collins
City of Grand Island City Council
Council Agenda Memo
From: John Collins, Public Works Director
Meeting: June 7, 2011
Subject: Discussion on City Dewatering Wells
Item #’s: 3
Presenter(s): John Collins, Public Works Director
Background
On December 21, 1998 the Cit y entered into an agreement with the Central Platte Natural
Resources District (CPNRD), which provided for the installation of test and monitoring
wells. These wells were placed in the following areas, Cambridge Road, Sun Valley
Avenue, Nevada Avenue, Villa Mar Dee Avenue, and Phoenix Avenue, and allowed for
studying the success of lowering groundwater levels.
Olsson Associates was the consulting engineering firm selected to conduct the study. The
study recommended the installation of a series of vertical wells and a pipeline to carry the
water to the Platte River. When the study was completed in September 2000 the opinion
of probable cost for the construction of the capital improvements was $13,063,000, with
an annual cost to amortize these improvements at $1,233,100. The annual operation and
maintenance costs were estimated to be at $341,000.
Discussion
It has been found that the City Council authorized the agreement between the City &
CPNRD during the term of the planning period, which was not to exceed thirty-six (36)
months from the date of execution.
The City has been powering and providing for maintenance and repairs of these wells 7+
years past the authorization given by Council.
At this time Staff needs direction on how Council wishes to proceed with these wells.
The discussion needs to happen regarding whether City will continue to provide for the
power, maintenance, and repairs or turn them over to the residents in the affected areas.
Conclusion
This item is presented to the City Council in a Study Session to allow for any questions to
be answered and to create a greater understanding of the issue at hand.
It is the intent of City Administration to bring this issue to a future council meeting for
the action Council wishes to take on this matter.
PUBLIC WORKS
Dewatering Wells
PUBLIC WORKS
Interlocal Agreement with the CPNRD
Executed December 21, 1998 and amended October
25, 1999
Demonstration project to test the feasibility of
dewatering the City
Cost split 50/50
36 month limit with the option to amend to extend
Amendment dealt with responsibilities during
planning period.
PUBLIC WORKS
Final Report
Approved September 26, 2000
Recommended $13million dewatering project
(preliminary estimate)
Outlined alternatives for the design.
PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS
Concept
PUBLIC WORKS
Villa Mar Dee
PUBLIC WORKS
Sun Valley Drive
PUBLIC WORKS
Phoenix Avenue
PUBLIC WORKS
Nevada Avenue
PUBLIC WORKS
Cambridge Road
PUBLIC WORKS
Influence
Villa Mar Dee 29 9
Sun Valley Drive 118 44
Phoenix Avenue 128 46
Nevada Avenue 54 22
Cambridge Road 24 50
353 171
400'
radius
700'
radius
PUBLIC WORKS
Annual Cost
Power $15,000
Testing $7,200
Repair: $5,000
Maintenance has not been tracked
Note that the pumps are nearing the end of their 15 year
design life
PUBLIC WORKS
Issues
The City has powered these 5 wells without
authorization from the Council
The pumps are near the end of their design life and
will need to be replaced
Only a few properties benefit (most dewatering wells
are private)
PUBLIC WORKS
Options
Continue to operate these 5 wells
Add additional wells
Reconsider the NRD’s proposal