Loading...
2018 07 26 WS Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN JULY 26, 2018 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on July 26, 2018, at 5:30 P.M., in the Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance: Laura Alvarado Council Member Robert Hoskins Council Member Charles Johnson Mayor Pro Tern David Himsel Council Member Chris Presley Council Member Heather Betancourth Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Rick Davis City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Leticia Brysch City Clerk Mayor DonCarlos convened the July 26, 2018, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 5:30 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member Presley who arrived at 6:21 P.M. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Receive and discuss a presentation regarding options for the expansion and upgrade of the Animal Control Facility. City Manager Rick Davis presented the item and stated that some time ago the staff provided Council with a presentation regarding the Animal Control Facility and its two main tasks of(1) enforcement and (2) animal health and welfare. He noted that the Director of Strategic Initiatives Nick Woolery would give the Council an overview of the citizen's views on animal control before turning it over to the City's consultant to go over recommendations for moving forward with this item. Mr. Woolery noted that this year's Citizen Survey showed that as it relates to Animal Control Services the respondents were 47% satisfied, 30% neutral, and 24% dissatisfied, and while animal control was ranked as one of the top priorities, the results were inconclusive. In order to clarify the results, staff reached out to forty-six (46) of the surveyed residents with four (4) additional questions regarding their satisfaction with animal services, specifically: (1) the amount of stray dogs loose in the neighborhood, (2) the nuisance of cats loose in the neighborhoods, (3) the quality of the animal shelter and (4) the percentage of animals getting adopted. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Woolery noted that the results while not statistically significant identified that the majority of those surveyed (58%) said this item was an issue but would not be at the top of their list of priorities for the upcoming budget; 31% said it was not a priority at all and only 11% said it was a high priority. With that said, while this item is important, it does not rise to the top of the priorities for budgeting purposes and is instead more middle of the ground. Health Director Mike Lester introduced Ms. Kim Dowdy, Director of Animal Care Design for Quorum Architecture and Interior Design Group who completed the City's Animal Shelter and Adoption Center Needs Assessment. Mr. Lester noted that the Quorum Group was selected and it was tasked to do a full needs assessment for animal control and come back with recommendations on how to move forward. Mr. Lester noted that staff will need input from the Council regarding what direction to take on the shelter and how to proceed within the designated budget and resources. Ms. Dowdy thanked the Council and noted that her specialty is truly in animal care design, and has worked on over forty such facilities throughout the State of Texas. Ms. Dowdy noted that they were tasked with taking an in-depth look at the City's animal control facility; make recommendations in order to make it a modern day facility and consider phases for the recommended upgrades.. Ms. Dowdy stated that the existing facility's structure was built in 1998 and is a pre-engineered building that has a lot of wear on it. She noted that the structure is not meeting current International Building Codes, which means that if this building is rehabbed, it will need a lot of updates, as the facility will need to be brought up to Code once renovations begin. She noted that excessive renovation will be needed as the structure is starting to rust throughout the structure; the insulation is leaking; the light fixtures will need to be replaced to LED fixtures; there are some accessibility that includes ramps and wall clearances throughout the building, and other miscellaneous issues. Ms. Dowdy stated that some of the first things she noticed related to safety concerns that include, a large open trench that is twelve-eight inches wide with about twenty-four inches deep that staff could trip on, there are fire code issues, mold, and ADA compliance issues. Ms. Dowdy also noted that the sizes of the kennels and the kennel cleaning space is very small and makes it difficult for the staff to navigate and clean; there is no noise protection for the animals and the staff; there is no natural daylight for the animals; the dog kennels are chain linked fencing that the animals can bite and hurt themselves, and the HVAC system needs upgrading. Ms. Dowdy stated that there are no real areas for the potential pet owners to visit or interact with the dogs and cats, inside and outside of the facility. The animals are in close proximity, which can spread diseases and kennel rooms for the dogs and cats are not visible to the public. Ms. Dowdy further noted that the facility has a residential grade HVAC and laundry room that are not sufficient to deal with the needs of the facility. Ms. Dowdy showed the Council pictures of different modern day facilities that they have worked on throughout Texas that included play yards, open area receptions with windows to see the animals in their large kennels; light and bright buildings with lots of natural light, safe and City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 3 of 9 distinct meet and greet areas, veterinarian surgical suites, and warm inviting reception areas. Ms. Dowdy noted that animal facilities are now being turned into destination places with park settings, recreational fields, soccer fields, in order to create a space that invites the public to come in and meet the animals. She also noted that facilities have state of the art veterinarian clinics for an on-site vet or a contracted one that can have multiple areas; such as a surgical room, a pre-op area, recovery spaces and separate kennels within those rooms for the animals being treated. Ms. Dowdy stated that as it related to the conceptual design, she recommended having a master plan for a big overhaul of the entire facility and site plan that can be completed in phases. She noted that the new master site plan would include a new inviting modern day animal shelter and adoption center, outdoor meet and greet and/or exercise courtyards, an adjacent public dog park, trailhead access and connections to the City's trails, a shared parking area for the trailhead, dog park, the animal shelter and adoption center, and the addition of amenities that will turn the shelter into a destination place. Ms. Dowdy noted that other cities are adding amenities such as parks and trails to attract visitors to the area that will then be enticed to visit the adoption center. She noted that this is a great way to get foot traffic into the animal shelter. Ms. Dowdy also recommended having two drives coming in of the loop of the front-end road, one for the staff to the sally port and the other for visitors. She recommended that staff areas be kept separate from the public areas. Md. Dowdy also recommended that the animals for adoption and those being treated by the veterinarian staff be maintained separately, with separate drop-off and receiving areas and kennels; this will reduce the breakout of diseases and infections. Ms. Dowdy suggested that the new animal shelter would need about twenty-three thousand square feet, in order to have a true dedicated space for the animals, the public and the veterinarian suite. She noted that this is much larger than the existing sixty-seven hundred right now. The new space would include a large lobby area, transparent areas for cat display, as well as, some get to know rooms, retail space, staff offices, a reception and a multi-use meeting and training room that staff can use for meetings or can be open to the public. Ms. Dowdy noted that the animal control section of the building includes the vet clinic with a true vet office, surgery prep room, a surgery suite and recovery rooms, which will allow for all of the activities related to treatment happening in one place; separate and apart from the rest of the shelter. The animal control area will also include large prep areas, storage space, cat rooms and spaces, large dog kennels, and indoor and outdoor accessibility for the staff and animals as needed. Ms. Dowdy stated that in looking at a state of the art facility that will last the City for the next fifty years, the existing facility is not feasible as it is outdated, at its end of life time use period, is not compliant with building codes, among other issues. She recommended the construction of a new facility inclusive of the animal shelter and adoption center with related construction and design cost at $10.1 million dollars; however, if soft costs are included the amount is more like $12.28 million. Ms. Dowdy stated that the soft costs include site surveys, IT/Date connectivity, the relocation of equipment, security and access control, among other things. She noted that these estimates are based on today's pricing and costs and would have to be adjusted in the City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 4 of 9 future to accommodate inflation and increases in pricing if the project it phased and/or delayed, but estimated a 5%construction escalation every year. Ms. Dowdy stated that phasing of this project is recommended as follows: Cost Projections, Phase 1 a—Interim Solution &New Vet Clinic Construction Total: $2.0 Million • Includes the construction costs for: (1) interim solutions for the convert sally port/medical vet clinic; (2) a shell building of the new animal adoption center; and (3) a new vet clinic. Construction and Soft Cost Total: 2.62 Million • Includes construction and soft costs for: (1) exterior/ interior FF&E; architectural design and engineering; (3) site survey; (4) IT/data connectivity; (5) the relocation of equipment; (6) security and access control; and (7)TAS/ADA compliance. Cost Projections, Phase lb—Completion of Animal Adoption Center Construction Total: $2.1 Million • Includes the construction costs for: (1) complete animal adoption center; (2) outdoor play yards; and (3) expanded parking. Construction and Soft Cost Total: 2.78 Million • Includes construction and soft costs for: (1) exterior/ interior FF&E; architectural design and engineering; (3) site survey; (4) IT/data connectivity; (5)the relocation of equipment, (6) security and access control, and(7)TAS/ADA compliance. Phase 2—Animal Shelter Construction Total: $3.5 Million • Includes the construction costs for: (1) animal shelter with sally port; (2) outdoor play yards; (3) expanded staff parking; and (4) the relocation of parking canopy for animal shelter equipment and vehicles. Construction and Soft Cost Total: 6.65 Million • Includes construction and soft costs for: (1) exterior/ interior FF&E; architectural design and engineering; (3) site survey; (4) IT/data connectivity; (5) the relocation of equipment; (6) security and access control; and (7) TAS/ADA compliance. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Dowdy noted that this second phase builds the heart of the shelter as it includes the animal control portion, along with the sally port and driveway to allow for a separate intake area and some much needed play yards. Phase 3 —Adoptable/ Stray Kennel Addition Construction Total: $1.55 Million • Includes the construction costs for: (1) animal shelter with sally port; (2) outdoor play yards; and (3) expanded staff parking; Construction and Soft Cost Total: 1.93 Million • Includes construction and soft costs for: (1) exterior/ interior FF&E; architectural design and engineering; (3) site survey; (4) IT/data connectivity; (5)the relocation of equipment; (6) security and access control; and (7)TAS/ADA compliance. Phase three will finish off the master plan with the addition of the multi-use panel area, the dog park area and more parking. Ms. Dowdy did a quick summary of all the pricing for the phasing: • Phase 1 a and lb includes the complete adoption center; • Phase 2 includes the animal control portion of the shelter; and • Phase 3 for the center corridor kennels. She noted that all of this project can be done at one time at a cost of 12.28 million or in phases as described below. Mr. Lester noted that staff is aware that the existing facility is in somewhat disrepair; however, no plans were made to upgrade or fix anything, as staff was waiting for this presentation and discussions, in order to received direction from the Council on how to proceed on this item. Once Council's direction is received, staff will then circle back with the consultants to talk about what can be done within the given budget constraints and time lines. Mr. Lester further noted that as Ms. Dowdy indicated, the building has a lot of structural issues and once staff starts down that road of rehabilitation, the entire structure will have to come up to current codes and standards, air ventilation, HVAC, plumbing, drainage, etc., which is not cost effective. Mr. Lester further noted that the building has reached its life expectancy, and so at this point, staff has to make a commitment to the extend its life for maybe three to five more years, while not necessarily adding to the strategic planning of this facility. He noted the building being planned will allow the City to have growth for the next 50 years, and while some of the items in Phase 3 will not be needed until 10 years from now, the City is expected to grow to the point where they will need that extra capacity. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 6 of 9 Mr. Lester noted that currently the facility meets state standards for a quarantine facility. The original facility was built as a K-9 impound facility only. This has changed over the years and now includes feline impounding, an adoption center and public access, which was never a part of the original plan for this structure. So while the City meets the rules it must comply with; i.e.; State Regulations for quarantine issues, Chapters 826 and 828, it does not meet the current building and fire codes because of grandfathering. Mr. Lester further noted that the new standards for animal facilities have changed and while in the past they were hidden, now they are out front and open for everyone to see and visit. This is how the animals get adopted, by the foot traffic that is generated by being a destination place that is friendly, open and inviting. Mr. Lester also noted that staff is aware that the total package is a lot and wanted the Council to see it as a wish list for the facility with the realization that Christmas is really based on budgetary issues, so what can staff really go forward with and what is the best timing. The Council's agreed that connecting the trails and a dog park at the animal control facility was a wonderful idea to bring the public into the facility, but questioned its costs. Ms. Dowdy noted that dog parks can be as simple as chain link fence, separated areas from small and large dogs from the public, which is not very costly. There are also opportunities to add things to the dog park as monies become available such as obstacle course and trails. She noted that she has seen some parks and trails go for anywhere from half a million dollars to like 2 million dollars, it just depends on what Council wants at this location. Council Member Himsel recommended using the slope of the land and place the facilities on the high slope to help with any future flowing issues. Ms. Dowdy stated that this is something that can be taken into consideration and moved around accordingly. She further noted that right now the design is very conceptual, and can be modified to best fit the site. Mr. Lester noted that staff is going to bring the Council a needs assessment based on the comments received and will come back in order to discuss this further. Council noted that 12.5 million dollars for a facility is a lot of money. Mr. Lester noted that staff is just excited to get this idea in front of the Council in order to start that thought process because this is such a big project, and no matter how it is approached, all together or in phases, it is a very big project that will need to be discussed and planned to meet the needs of the City with a feasible costs. b. Discuss possible in-house towing services and vehicle storage facilities for nonconsent tows. Assistant City Attorney Deanie King presented the item and stated that staff proceeded with the RFP process for towing and vehicle storage facility services for its nonconsent tows and received some proposals from ten of the local towing companies. Ms. King noted that, unfortunately, none of the RFPs were what staff was looking for, and as such, staff is going to recommend for Council to take formal action to reject all of those proposals. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 7 of 9 Ms. King noted that today, she was going to present the Council information on the possibility of doing or serving our towing and vehicle storage needs in-house, and the associated costs in order to do so. Ms. King noted that the staff recommends that the Council allow the staff to proceed with a bid process to where all the local companies can go ahead and bid for this contract. She noted that the bid process is a little different than the RFP process, and it would be bid for both heavy-duty and regular tows. Ms. King noted that if the City received acceptable bids, then staff will move forward and present those to the Council for action. If the City does not get acceptable bids, then staff will conduct some further research on towing vehicles and a vehicle storage facility(VSF) to house the City's nonconsent tows. Ms. King stated that Finance Director Wade Nickerson would be presenting the Council with the numbers associated with in-house towing and VSF services, but before doing so, she wanted to note that when staff began this in-house process with a round number of 100 spaces needed for the City's vehicle storage facility. She noted that this is an estimate because vehicles will come in and out of the facility and on staff, really not knowing what number to begin the process with, so for today the cost estimates are for a 100 slot facility. Ms. King further noted that after contacting multiple different cities and doing the extrapolation of the number of tows versus the number of slots in existence, the City is probably going to need 300 to 400 spaces, and would recommend having 500 space vehicle storage facility just to be safe. Mr. Nickerson stated that staff is basing its revenue on this service with the existing information of about 3,500 vehicle tows per year at a rate of$150.00 per tow and $20.00 a day for storage, which came out to an estimated $525,000 in revenues for tows and $547,500 in revenue for VSF fees. Mr. Nickerson noted that as Ms. King mentioned earlier, 100 spaces, may be too small based on some of the newer information staff has put together, but it is a start. So for the first year of costs for improving the current facility that will have 100 years and 100 stalls, with personnel, staff is estimating the costs at $642,000 for personnel per year, $581,030 for the purchase of the equipment, and about $279,456 in improvements to VSF location, which would be an estimated total of about $1.5 million for the first year. Mr. Nickerson stated that staff would still have to buy the tow trucks, but these are the estimated first year costs should Council decide to move forward with bringing those services in-house. Mr. Nickerson noted that the ongoing annual costs for personnel and equipment replacement will not really change and noted that the intent of the program would be to save these revenues in order to continually replace the vehicles and equipment as they are needed. The ongoing costs were estimated at $641,986 for personnel, $83,004 for equipment replacement and $25,000 for facility improvements, for a total of$749,990. Mr. Nickerson noted that this is a simple estimate based on square footage of the building and the facilities out there about now; how much it is going to cost to get it ready to handle these vehicles, etc., but reiterated that this is the cost for a 100-space VSF only and if the City needs to go to a larger lot to accommodate 300 to 500 vehicles, there will be more upfront costs based on paving, fencing, finding the property, that type of thing. Mr. Nickerson noted that in the same way as the costs go up to accommodate for an increase in vehicles, revenue would also increase. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 8 of 9 Ms. King noted that the revenue projections are based mostly on the amount of tows, and the storage facility is more about how often cars are turned over versus revenue. She noted that revenues for this program are really based upon the amount of tows that staff knows are currently being handled, more so than how many cars are in the storage facility. Ms. King noted that the City just needs to have a facility that can accommodate everything that is not turned over in one way or the other. Mr. Davis stated that this was the bulk of the information on this item and if it was the Council's desire to move in this direction, staff would definitely need some more time to do more analysis with our updated information, on, on some of the increases in the upfront costs of the, of the facility. Mr. Davis also noted that staff did not contemplate those costs in the current budget. Mr. Nickerson noted that depending on whether the City can find a facility to accommodate 500 slots quickly, it will take about six months to get everything fully functional and operating. Mr. Nickerson did note that the City does have a location, the old transportation center that can hold 100 slots. Ms. King stated that staff just found a location that could hold that many and that was the starting point. She noted that staff then started calling many different cities and decided to present what she currently has in place,but the City is really going to need a bigger facility if this service is internalized. Ms. King noted that the intent of the research was to see if this was something the City could handle on its own should the bid process not get the City what is it looking for, then staff knows that this is something that can definitely be done in house. The Council's consensus was to move forward with the bid process before trying to take this service in-house and request that the staff give the potential bidders information on the rules of engagement when doing a bid process. Ms. King stated that she would hold a very detailed pre-bid meeting to make sure to explain the differences between this process and the prior RFP. Ms. King noted to the Council that there are many cities in Texas that have their own VSH; however, none of them do their own non-consent incident management tows; no police department does their own towing, but there are a number of cities that do their own vehicle storage for city purposes. She noted that staff is proposing to do the whole thing, but there are a number of different options that we can consider and those would certainly be presented to the Council before moving forward on anything. However, she recommended going the bid route first. Ms. King noted that a bid process requires that people bid a number, and while all of the bids may be different and there is no negotiation allowed after the bid is completed, which is different from an RFP. Ms. King stated that her proposal would be to put five to six companies on the list and the number one bidder gets the call every single time first because they need the lowest or best or whatever bidder, so they will get the number to call first, and if they are not available, the dispatcher will go to number two, three and so forth. Therefore, the towing company first on the City Council Regular Work Session Minutes July 26,2018 Page 9 of 9 bid list, or number one, is going to get the majority of the business. She noted that the bid process is not on the agenda today, so she did not want to go into too much detail because that is not what was posted for discussion. Council requested that the bid be brought back for discussion prior to moving forward with the bid process. Ms. King noted that the attorneys will discuss how to bring that information that is in line with procurement laws. c. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for July 26, 2018,which is attached below. This item was not taken. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the July 26, 2018, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:23 P.M. / _i ,rax avw>gb y'w.may H� • l Leticia Brysch, City Cle 7110 I City of Baytown 5 i ��r P'�5ax M4q�i1�"