Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 5/1/2001 (5) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, HELD TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2001, AT 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Scruggs, with Vice Mayor Eggleston and the following Councilmembers present: Clark, Frate, Goulet, Lieberman, and Martinez. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; Ed Beasley, Assistant City Manager; Rick Flaaen, City Attorney; and Pamela Oliveira, City Clerk. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Martin Vanacour, City Manager, read Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 3 by number and title. 1. AWARD OF PROPOSAL 01-14, VEHICLE LEASE Two proposals were received to supply the City with 16 lease vehicles for use by the Glendale Police Department. The full service vehicle lease, includes all routine and unscheduled maintenance repairs, roadside assistance, and loaner vehicles for maintenance requirements that exceed two days. An evaluation panel, consisting of staff from the Police Department, reviewed the proposals using specific evaluation criteria, which included compliance with specifications, cost, ability to provide parts, service, and warranty, and capabilities of firm and staff. The offer scored highest by the panel was submitted by Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix. The initial agreement shall be for a two-year period and contains option clauses that permit the City, at the discretion of the City Manager, to increase the vehicle lease quantity by six and to extend the agreement an additional four years in two-year increments. Funding is available in the in Police Department Vehicle Lease Account Number 01-3230-7810 and RICO Funds Account Number 48-7077-7810. The recommendation was to award the vehicle lease contract to Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phoenix in the amount of $102,289 per year, taxes included. 2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT — UNION HILLS DRIVE BRIDGE WIDENING This was a request for City Council approval of a professional services agreement with the firm of HDR Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $188,265 for the design of a bridge widening on Union Hills Drive at New River. The purpose of this design is to widen the existing bridge on Union Hills Drive to provide additional travel lanes in each direction. The construction will be done in two phases. The south side of the bridge will be widened first, with the construction being administrated by the City of Glendale. The north side of the bridge will be widened in the future by the City of Peoria, using federal congestion mitigation air quality funding. Because of the need to relieve the existing traffic congestion between 83rd Avenue and the Loop 101 caused by the increased traffic from the area north and west, it was decided to proceed with the widening of the bridge at this time. The widening will help prevent the long delays for motorists attempting to reach the Loop 101 Freeway and will lessen the delays for emergency access to this area. Rapid selection of a qualified consultant was required to address these problems before they get worse. HDR Engineering, Inc. was selected because they designed the existing bridge for the Maricopa County Highway Department and have knowledge and experience on other bridge projects. Funds for this project are being made available in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget in 83rd Avenue and Union Hills Street/Bridge Improvements Account Number 14-8040-8300. The recommendation was to approve the professional services agreement with the firm of HDR Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $188,265. 3. 2001-2002 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PROGRAM RENEWAL In the fall of 2000, the City began the renewal process for the 2001-2002 employee benefits plan year that begins on May 1st. This renewal date applies to the medical, dental, vision, life insurance, employee assistance plan, and flexible spending accounts. The Employee Benefits Department staff, the management team, and the Employee Health Care Task Force have developed recommendations for renewing the following benefit plans: Medical A 30.6% increase is required to fund the anticipated claims and administrative fees. Two revisions to the medical plan will reduce the 30.6% rate increase to 23%. These plan revisions include: (1) changing the pharmacy benefit manager to AdvancePCS and (2) increasing prescription drug co-payments to $10 for generic drugs, $15 for brand name drugs on the preferred list, and $25 for all other brand name drugs. These co-payments will apply to retail pharmacy and mail order purchases. Employees electing dependent medical coverage will see an increase of $11.44 per pay period. Any budget shortage resulting from this rate increase can be funded from the Health Care Trust Fund established last year to stabilize future benefit program increases. 2 Dental A rate increase of 5% is required by United Concordia to cover increased costs due to dental inflation factors. There are no changes in benefits for the United Concordia dental plan. Employees electing dependent dental coverage with United Concordia will see a premium increase of $1.00 per pay period. The United Protective dental plan is decreasing rates by 8%. United Protective has eliminated the current plan of benefits and replaced it with new plan of benefits with increased co-payments for some services. Employees electing dependent dental coverage with United Protective will see a premium decrease of $0.92 per pay period. The combination of rate changes for the dental plan represents an increase of $33,000 to the City. This was included in the 2001-2002 fiscal year budget. Vision There is no change in rates or benefits for the 2001-2002 plan year. Life Insurance There is no change in rates or benefits for the 2001-2002 plan year. Employee Assistance Plan There is no change in cost or benefits for the 2001-2002 plan year. Administration of the Flexible Spending Accounts There is no increase in cost for this service for the 2001-2002 plan year. The information on the renewal process and recommendations was presented to the Council at the Workshop sessions held on February 20, 2001 and April 17, 2001. The recommendation was to authorize the City Manager to renew all contracts with the recommended providers of our benefit services. It was moved by Clark, and seconded by Goulet, to approve the recommended actions on Consent Agenda Item Nos. 1 through 3. The motion carried unanimously. 3 NEW BUSINESS 4. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO DEFEND ALLEGATION OF OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATION In December of 2000, Hayscale L.L.C. (Hayscale) commenced litigation against the City of Glendale and the City Council, alleging that the City Council improperly amended the stipulations of development to Rezoning Application Z-99-01 during the City Council meeting held on December 19, 2000, when the City Council approved Zoning Amendment Application Z-00-25. In April of 2001, Hayscale amended its litigation to include an allegation that the City Council violated the Arizona open meeting laws during the City Council meeting held on October 10, 2000. Hayscale, through its attorney, first raised the allegation that an open meeting law violation had occurred at the October 10, 2000 City Council meeting in a letter to the City dated December 19, 2000. The Interim City Attorney and outside counsel investigated the allegation, which included reviewing the video taped recording of the October 10, 2000, City Council meeting, and determined that no open meeting violation had occurred. Hayscale's attorney was advised of the results of this investigation in a letter to its attorney dated December 26, 2000. The Arizona Revised Statutes, at Sec. 38-431.07(B), prohibits a public body from expending public monies to provide legal counsel or representation to the public body or any of its officers in any legal action alleging an open meeting law violation, unless the public body takes legal action at a properly noticed open meeting approving such expenditure. In order for the City of Glendale to expend public monies to retain and provide legal representation to defend against the meritless allegation by Hayscale that an open meeting violation occurred at the City Council meeting on October 10, 2000, it is necessary for the City Council to authorize such expenditure at an open meeting after giving opportunity for comment by the public. The recommendation was to authorize the expenditure of City funds to retain legal representation to defend the allegation by Hayscale L.L.C. that an open meeting law violation occurred at the City Council meeting held on October 10, 2000. Mr. Leonard Clark. a resident of the City of Glendale Barrel District, expressed his disappointment that it is necessary to use taxpayers' money to defend the City against Hayscale's allegation, which he agreed has no merit. It was moved by Eggleston, and seconded by Goulet, to authorize the expenditure of City funds to retain legal representation to defend the allegation by Hayscale L.L.C. that an open meeting law violation occurred at the City Council meeting held on October 10,2 000. The motion carried unanimously. 4 COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS There were no comments from the Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Pamela 0 eira - City Clerk 5