HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1015 Study Session MIN
City Council Study Session
October 15, 2012
Page 1 of 4
r
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, October 15, 2012
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Voisin, Silbiger, Lemhouse, Morris, Slattery, and Chapman were present.
1. Look Ahead
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
2. Review of the Ashland Solid Waste Rate Review Report
City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced Chris Bell, the CPA for Bell and Associates, Recology
General Managers Steve DiFabion and Ed Farewell, and Recology Regional Financial Manager Tom
Norris. In 2011, Recology met with Council and requested a 23% rate increase. Council granted an 11 %
increase and asked for an independent review of rates and operations.
For the report, Mr. Bell reviewed prior financial results and operational data from Recology, identified
efficiencies, costs, and operations, and noted the City lacked a resolution with clear direction regarding
solid waste collection. If the City wanted to maintain the current system without changes, it would
require a rate increase. In the long-term, the City needed to make decisions regarding rates, garbage
collection, and infrastructure. He recommended a short-term rate increase of 7%-8% and suggested a
planning process that would involve two Councilors, the City Administrator, and Recology to determine
how to manage solid waste services in the future.
Mr. DiFabion explained Recology made two unilateral changes when they took over Ashland Sanitary.
One added an extra free leaf collection day to help keep leaves out of the storm drain system, and the
second was keeping the Ashland Recycle Center opened 6 days a week instead of 5 days due to customer
demand.
Mr. Kanner noted the franchise agreement was silent on services other than collecting garbage and
recycling. A new franchise agreement would give the City more control over operations and services.
City Attorney Dave Lohman added the current franchise agreement would end 2018. Recology agreed
there was a lack of clarity and supported developing a new franchise agreement.
Mr. DiFabion listed additional services provided at the Ashland Recycling Center beyond basic cardboard
and co-mingled recyclables that ranged from recycling ink cartridges to pet adoption. The core activities
driving the operation were cardboard and commingled recyclables with costs going to cardboard and
recycling pick-ups twice daily and funding a full time attendant 6 days a week. There was no way of
knowing whether the customers accessing the center were Ashland residents or not. The recycling center
was popular with approximately 286 customers daily.
Recycling was free at the Transfer Station with the exception of fluorescent lighting. The Transfer
Station also provided electronics recycling at. no charge with a seven items per day limit where the
Ashland Recycling Center only took cell phones.
Council expressed an interest knowing who utilized the recycle center. Mr. DiFabion explained
monitoring customers would be difficult and require an additional staff person. He went on to confirm a
customer could have curbside recycling without garbage collection. Ashland did not have a mandatory
service level.
City Council Study Session
October 15, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Mr. Bell noted a 7%-8% rate increase would maintain current service excluding the Recycling Center.
Retaining the Recycling Center would bring the rate increase to 23%. Recology also needed new trucks
and equipment that rates would absorb to cover costs. One benefit regarding equipment was Recology
could utilize trucks from their operations, and rebuild as needed since newer trucks were proving
unreliable and expensive.
An incentive for moving to a cart system was workers compensation issues in an aging workforce. A cart
system used automated trucks to pick up garbage and would increase productivity, reduce cost, and
alleviate customers dragging their cans out to street level. It would involve an initial investment but the
long-term results were stable rates with increases associated to fuel costs and labor agreements and a
70% 80% increase in productivity. Mr. DiFabion added a full cart system would eliminate one driver and
truck but thought semi-automated carting might be more feasible due to Ashland's terrain.
Mr. Bell addressed Table 4 - Cost of Service for Residential Waste and Recycling Collection in the
report and clarified the $1.86 cost for recycling was for pick up only and occurred twice per month. Solid
waste collection was $11.62 per month and happened weekly. Disposal for solid waste was $4.50. He
further clarified if a customer only wanted recycling collection they would pay $1.86, 15% Franchise Fee
and another 10% for the margin. Productivity for recycling collection was higher than garbage collection.
In Figure 2 - Ashland Sanitary Projected Financial Results of the report, recycling service was broken
down into two elements. Carts and cans for both commercial and residential went under Residential
Service with dumpsters and containers under Commercial Service.
Mr. Kanner noted the cost for yellow bag and ticket service was $8 per pick up, Recology charged $4.50
and subsequently other customers subsidized the difference. With one out of eight residential customers
using that service, it created a large subsidy. He suggested replacing the yellow bags with small carts and
requiring a minimal monthly fee. Mr. DiFabion commented communities that separated recycling costs
from garbage costs experienced a notable decrease in participation rates. In general, Oregon blended
recycling costs into garbage collection rates.
Mr. Bell explained corporate overhead increased as operations streamlined and processes moved from the
local level to corporate, resulting in an increase in corporate overhead and a decrease in local overhead.
Mr. Norris added they could keep the Recycling Center open if Recology received an 8% increase instead
of 7%.
Councilor Chapman left the meeting at 6:37 p.m.
Mr. Kanner would bring a resolution to Council regarding the rate increase before the end of the year,
form a team to develop a new franchise agreement, look at service levels, automating garbage collection,
eliminating yellow bag service, and possibly establishing a recycling rate.
3. Review of proposed revisions to AMC Chapter 3.08, General Personnel Policies and Employee
Responsibilities
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the revisions to 3.08 included rewriting the code of ethics to
make it more consistent with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 244 State Ethics Law, adding information
from Resolution (RESO) 2012-23, and changing pertinent information to provide one set of rules for
elected and appointed officials, and employees.
City Council Study Session
October 15, 2012
Page 3 of 4
Staff used the definition of terms in RESO 2012-23 for definitions. Initially they deleted the definition of
management and manager but reinstated it at the suggestion of the City Attorney because it showed up
later in the benefits section. They added definitions for Temporary Employee, Seasonal Employee,
Limited Duration Position, On-Call Employee, Part-time Employee, and Hourly Employee. Under
Section 3.08.010 General Personnel Policies - Purpose (A)(5) the wording changed to "Promote high
morale among City employees by providing good, safe working conditions and opportunity for
advancement." In (B) (B) Scope and Coverage, staff added the following sentence: "In the event of a
conflict between these policies and a collective bargaining agreement, the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement shall prevail."
Section 3.08.020 Code of Ethics (A) staff added a fourth paragraph stating: "The provisions of ORS
244 ("Government Ethics Law") as it currently exists or may from time to time be amended are
incorporated by reference herein. A violation of any provision of ORS 244 shall be considered a
violation of this Code of Ethics." The majority of the language under 1. Disclosure and 2.
Transactions with the City came from the current code. Also added to 2. Transactions with the City
were (3) Gifts, (4) Remuneration Contingent on City Action, (5) Disclosure of Confidential
Information, (6) Representing Private Interests Before Courts or City Departments or Elected or
Appointed Bodies, and (7) Incompatible Employment.
Language under (3) Gifts mirrored state law. City employees could receive gifts in a calendar year $50
or less from a source with a legislative or administrative interest in the employee's official function.
Employees could accept unlimited gifts from someone without a legislative or administrative interest.
However, elected officials and city administrators should consider anyone who lived or did business in
Ashland as having a legislative or administrative interest. Also added was language requiring a city
employee to share any gifts received under $50 with other employees. For gifts in excess of $50, the
employee was required to return it to the person who gave it to them or donate it to a charitable agency.
City employees could keep small items like coffee mugs, pens, and t-shirts. City Attorney Dave Lohman
recommended further adjustments to the wording to ensure clarity.
For (5) Disclosure of Confidential Information, new language instructed city employees to retain
confidential information. There was no way to sanction an elected official who disclosed confidential
information. Alternately, if an elected official violated confidential information, they could incur
personal liability.
Staff revised language under (F) Political Activity to mimic state law and reference The Hatch Act.
Under (G) Applicability of City Code of Ethics and State Ethics Law; Responsibility for Defense,
staff added: "The opinion of the City Administrator, the City Attorney, or the Mayor shall not be
considered an affirmative defense if a public official is charged by the Oregon Government Ethics
Commission with a violation of state Ethics Law."
Mr. Lohman noted a new point that a councilor could come to the City Attorney for an opinion and have
it held confidential.
Section 3.08.040 General Personnel Policies and Procedures (4) added: "No individual shall be
advantaged in securing and/or maintaining full-time or part-time employment or promotional
opportunity as a result of nepotism, defined as an employment advantage from a familial or an
intimate personal relationship with another full or part-time employee of the City. Relatives and
employees in close personal relationships may work for the city as long as the employment
relationship can be insulated from actual or potential conflicts of interest in the workplace, and so
long as neither relative has direct supervisory authority over the other."
City Council Study Session
October 15, 2012
Page 4 of 4
Language in (C) Personal Appearance and Conduct came from another section in the code and
wording for (G) Residence Requirements mirrored RESO 2012-23. Council discussed the use of
"strongly encouraged" in (G) Residence Requirements with comments both supporting and opposing.
New language under (.f) Selling and Peddling among Employees complied with ORS 244 State Ethics
Law.
Section 3.08.100 Discipline and Discharge (A)(1)(2)(3) came from the current language. Staff added
procedures to Section 3.08.110 Grievance Procedures. Section 3.08.120 Hours of Work and Outside
Employment was a mix of current and added language and established guidelines for employees running
late and calling in sick. In the same section, there was new language to (B)(3) to comply with recent state
law. Staff added language in Section 3.08.130 Promotions, Demotions, and Reassignments not
previously addressed in the code. Language under Section 3.08.140 Vacation, Sick Leave and Other
Leaves (A)-(.n originated from the management resolution while (K)-(P) was new. Section 3.08.150
Termination of Employment contained new language as well.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder