|
October 3/05 Report
Start: 9:36 am. 10:10 am in camera.
Committee Attendance:
McCarthy (chaired), Jackson , Ferguson , Merulla (left early in the meeting, missed most), Bruckler, Collins, Braden. All were 'late' (in after scheduled start time of 9:30 ) by 2-7 minutes, except McCarthy.
Absent : Mitchell
Also present : Bratina ( 10:00 - 10:11 )
Staff: Public Works staff: Chris Murray, Scott Stewart, Jim Harnum, Don Hull, Beth Goodger, Bryan Shynal and two others. Late arrivals were Glen Peace, Peter Barkwell, one finance staff, two others.
Press: Brabant (Kevin Werner), Hamilton Spectator (Eric McGuiness), CFMU (Maggie Hughes),
CATCH (Judy Snider, Don McLean till 10:00 )
Agenda:
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/
CityDepartments/CorporateServices/Clerks/AgendaMinutes/
PublicWorksInfrastructureEnvironment/October3PublicWorksCommitteeAgenda.htm
(Note - there are 39 items on the outstanding business list)
4.1 Delegation request from John Hall, Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan to provide a 15-minute update with a power point presentation for the November 7th meeting. 5 delegates listed to attend.
5.1 Volunteer Committee Minutes - For Information.
- Hamilton Cycling Committee minutes of Aug. 3/05
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A6CF6752-1FA6-41A3-8695
-EA5F860C5058/0/Oct03HamiltonCyclingCommitteeMinutesAug3.pdf
- Solid Waste Management Master Plan Steering Committee (SWMMP) minutes of Aug. 9/05
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F542889E-9590
-49C6-AD06-CE06A21F0F6E/0/Oct03SolidWaste
SteeringCommitteeMinutesAug905.pdf
- Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan Working Group minutes of Aug. 11/05.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/8C21B28B-1D7C-4499-BDFF-
560E50FA2FBF/0/Oct03NiagaraHamiltonWastePlanAug11Mins.pdf
- Waste Reduction Task Force (WRTF) minutes of Aug. 17/05
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C5332DDF-51CC-4761-A28A-
511AE43A065C/0/Oct03WasteReductionTaskForceMinutesAug17.pdf
Discussion:
Ferguson refers to item c), noting the attendance of 3 observers from Toronto . He asks why they came and "were they surprised at our initiative?" Beth Goodger says that they were observing only, have been aware of the initiative for some time, and that they were "impressed".
Discussion Items:
8.1 Fire Alarm Capital Renewal Program: Downtown Hamilton Facilities.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/25EC527C-4868-425E-
B0BB-913D6549219E/0/Oct03PW05118.pdf
(The staff report recommends that the City spend $770,000 to replace obsolete components of the fire alarms system in five downtown Hamilton facilities. Staff recommends purchasing from Honeywell - there is no formal Request for Proposal - RFP)
Ferguson asks if 'sole sourcing' is the issue, and if this involves burglary alarms as well. PW's staff says, no, not burglary alarms. Ferguson asks if this is a "value added" initiative. Staff explains that this is 'an integration' of two systems.
Bruckler wonders how they can know that they got the best price. Staff says that they've dealt with Honeywell for over 45 years - their system is in the downtown already - and they have a contract with the city till 2012. He says that staff has "worked hard" with Honeywell regarding the price, and that they "feel very comfortable" that they're getting the "best value". Bruckler asks if staff surveyed other companies for other prices. Staff says that this is an "unusual situation" in that they are only replacing "key components". He adds that if they were to replace the full system they would "look around". He repeats that they "worked hard" with the company.
Jackson wants clarification about the finances, asking about the "$100,000 left (after purchase)". Staff says that there are other "soft costs" and a consultant hired ("a fire protection specialist to review all the specs") which absorbed the budgeted money not spent directly on system components.
Braden asks if the investment is seen as a long-term ("15-20 year?") investment. Staff says 25 years, approximately. Braden asks if the first set lasted 25 years. Staff says yes, and gives details, saying components were installed previously between 1977 and 1985. Braden asks if staff feel that this is merely a "replacement" or are they "improving" the system. Staff says, "improving", detailing that the components are "(now) up to (a newer?) code".
The 3 recommendations in the report are CARRIED ( Jackson/Ferguson )
8.2 Amendments to Capital Budget Pre-Approval Policy
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C1CF919-6C38-4543
-9BDC-EE4BFCEE377E/0/Oct03PW05117.pdf
From the staff report: Recommendation: That the existing pre-approval policy as approved by Council February 6, 2001 allowing City Departments to pre-spend up to 33% of the value of the preceding year's approved capital budget for roads, water, wastewater, storm sewers, waste management, community services, police services and transit projects on replacement, repair, or rehabilitation-type construction projects, in accordance with the approved purchasing policies and procedures, prior to the annual budget be amended as follows:
(a) The pre-approval allocation be increased from 33% to 50%
(b) Capital Budgets for Open Space Development & Parks Planning and Fleet & Facilities be included in the pre-approval policy.
Ferguson asks for Gerry Davis to go over how the proposal creates savings. Davis: "The savings - how we generate them - is through getting the tenders out early in the year. It's anywhere between 5-10% depending on the product and the service. This year we had asphalt come in about 6% cheaper than the contracts that went out later in the year, but then that's driven by oil prices. But how we package them and getting them out the door early to ensure that the work is done is where the construction industry makes it very favourable." Ferguson then asks for details on the total expenditure being asked for. Davis refers to Appendix A, saying that there are projects at the design stage that could go out for tender in the next few months and be awarded early in the new year. Ferguson looks at the financial and summarizes that the City will save $3M if they move to a 50% pre-approval allocation. Davis: ".I wouldn't want to say that we're going to save $3M overall - it would be great if we did, we would roll that over into the other projects that we put on the supplementary list.. 10% would be $3M.but that's primarily on the resurfacing contract - "at $8M that's $800,000 and we use that to bring other projects forward".
Bruckler comments that he's pleased to see the "open space and the park component, because that's very critical . my ward lost out on a full cycle as a result of the planning that we currently have".
Ferguson/Jackson move the motion and it is CARRIED.
Motions:
9.1 Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides on City Properties.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/BD58798F-55CE-47A1
-8411-9B9CCDAD42ED/0/Oct03MotionItem91.pdf
(The motion requests City staff to investigate alternatives to pesticide use).
Collins/Braden move the motion.
Ferguson asks if this is not already City policy? Bryan Shynal explains why the motion was brought forward. ".A few weeks ago, in advance of the commencement of our spray program, I sent out an operations update on information memo just advising that we would be spraying in City properties and parks for weed control and based on our assessment of turf and weed infestation that we'd be spraying significantly more than we had in the past just because of general deterioration of turf condition over the past few years. I believe it was Councillor McHattie who responded to that memorandum asking that we do not spray within his ward, and I believe he brought forward this motion requesting alternative information about what methods could be at what cost in order to obtain turf qualities without increased spray utilization. So that's the background to the memo. And yes, we do have a policy that directs staff to the minimization of spray, using other cultural practices, however there is a threshold limit that once we reach that threshold we are able to use pesticide, and that's where we're up (to)". Ferguson asks if the thrust of the motion is to ask for information and Shynal says it is, "for consideration at budget (time)".
Jackson asks that a c) part be added to the motion requesting the Pesticide sub-committee be "kept informed ", commenting that "we've had a couple of gaps in the past with the Pesticide sub-committee".
Motion CARRIES.
Notices of Motions:
Collins says that Merulla is absent due to a meeting with the police, but that he has requests for two new stop signs to be installed in Ward 4 that he would like to submit on Merulla's behalf. This is referred to Staff.
General Information:
McCarthy relinquishes the chair to Braden to speak. She comments about a situation in her ward where the water draining from one property's pool has implications for neighbouring properties, saying the situation is "problematic". She is wondering about a by-law, commenting that Guelph has a by-law to cover this. Staff is asked to bring a report back.
Braden comments about the speed limit and recent accidents at Hwy #97 and Brock Road . He asks that staff be given 'direction' to investigate how this intersection might be made safer. Ferguson suggests an "oversize stop sign". The two councillors and Scott Stewart agree to "talk off-line" about the situation.
Ferguson asks Beth Goodger about the opening date for the re-use centre. Goodger says she is unsure but that the earliest it will be is October 14 th .
Outstanding Items:
11.1 Item 'E' - Individual water meter policy . Was due Oct. 3 rd , now re dated due November 21 st . No explanation given for the delay.
11.2 Item 'R' - Native Tree Nursery Initiative, due Oct. 3rd . Chris Murray says that they are waiting (for something.microphone system failed for a minute or two). This is about tree replanting in the Red Hill Valley . He says the item will come to committee "sometime this fall".
11.3 Item 'S' - Sidewalk snow clearing, due Oct. 3 rd . Report to come "next cycle" (next meeting?). Jackson says he's "agitated" about this issue because he's "seen this bandied about before" and he doesn't want to leave this to "be debating when the snow flies". Shynal says the report that is coming will be a comprehensive report outlining 5 models with one recommendation and that committee should be "pleased with the completeness" of the report. But he admits that it "may be not as timely as it might have been".
Bruckler says he's concerned specifically about situations like heavily traveled Centennial Parkway where there's "lack of storage capacity" and snow is cleared several times a day from the street and pushed up on the sidewalk. Shynal assures that these types of areas will be addressed "outside the hardship fund" (as they don't qualify).
Ferguson asks if the report will be coming at things from a "social service or risk reduction and financial" aspect. Shynal says that the direction received was to look at "need" and "current industry practice". Ferguson asks if one of the options will be to clear ALL city sidewalks? Shynal says "for those who qualify for hardship - yes". Ferguson wonders how this will work. Will the plow move along and plow one sidewalk and then lift it up and drive by the next? Shynal says something about whole neighbourhoods being grouped together (but it's unclear because the microphone system is not working again). Ferguson asks if "risk management re slips and falls" will also be in the report and Shynal replies that this was not part of the original mandate. He says that economic hardship or disability issues re snow clearing is what they're looking at.
11.4 Item 'T' - Snow Clearing, due Oct. 3/05. This has been re-dated. Now due Nov. 7/05.
11.5 Item 'FF' - Source of truck Route Master Plan funding - $200,000, due Oct. 3/05. They now have the money for this, so the item can come off the outstanding business list.
11.6 Item 'HH' - Co-operative RFP with Toronto for street sweepers, due Oct. 3/05. Staff says that this item will come to committee after by the end of the year. They're waiting on Toronto 's process.
End of the public part of the meeting.
Committee moves in camera to discuss Private and Confidential issue regarding 'Request for Proposals C11-105-03 for the Design, Build and Operation of Waste Management Facilities'. After the in camera committee votes to "give direction to staff" on the issue.
|
