HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2011-05-09 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 2010 CITY OF KITCHENER
A special meeting of City Council was held at 2:35 p.m. this date, chaired by Mayor C. Zehr with all
members present.
Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant
to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code.
Ms. P. Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services, provided Council with an orientation to the
City's Capital Project Approval Process, expanding on the contents of Infrastructure Services
Department report INS-11-042, dated April 29, 2011, previously circulated.
In response to questions Council was advised:
• tenders are chosen based on price and tender openings are a public process;
• members of Council will be provided with the criteria for tenders;
• in the initial stage of submitting Expressions of Interest (EI), pricing is not included and staff rate
these expressions on the candidate's abilities;
• a short list is prepared and costing is submitted when those on the short list come for an interview.
Only the price for the successful bidder is disclosed when it comes to EI and Requests for
Proposal (RFP);
• the rating process for RFP and EI are subjective and sometimes it is difficult to rate with numbers;
• the report to Council can include the criteria and the reasons why the successful candidate was
chosen;
• the division between the budget process and the procurement process must be distinct;
• cost is only a part of the criteria for RFP and EI;
• if reports include only the costs of the chosen candidate and the second choice, this could open
the City up to litigation, as price is only a part of the criteria;
• Council should be looking at this process from the policy level;
• Purchasing By-law is being reviewed and a report will be coming forward to Council in the Fall.
• pre-qualification usually happens on extremely large projects to ensure that a company has the
capacity to handle the project;
• with more companies moving into the City which may not have the same qualities, is there a way
to undertake this a little differently;
• the need for a consultant may be for a particular expertise or because of the amount of time a
project will take;
• other reasons for hiring a consultant can include: they may have special equipment, legislative
requirements or the need for facilitation skills;
• a 10% contingency is permitted in the Purchasing By-law and contractors /consultants do not
submit lower bids in order to get the contingency;
• the City does have a robust project management process and, if a project is delayed, staff may
bring the matter to Council or to the Ward Councillor;
• major projects have a deficiency hold back which requires monitoring of the completed project and
there is generally a 2-year warranty on major projects.
Mr. H. Gross, Director of Asset Management, introduced Infrastructure Services Department report
INS-11-029, dated April 5, 2011, respecting Phase 1 of the Asset Management Service Delivery
Strategy. He also introduced Ms. N. Prior of Prior and Prior, who undertook an asset management
gap analysis which she presented at this time.
In response to questions, Ms. Prior responded that short-lived inventory such as furniture and
computers are not usually included in the inventory, as it does not give value for the time invested.
Mr. Gross advised that the list on pages 1(b) 9 and 10 in the agenda package provides replacement
values and identifies short lived assets with values.
In response to further questions, Mr. H. Gross advised that the gap analysis is 188 pages long and all
of that detail has not been included in this staff report; however, it will be made available in digital
format.
In response to further questions, Ms. Prior advised that assets have an undisputed value. The
purpose of the assessment is to validate what the City should be spending to maintain its assets and
the current maintenance is relatively low.
Staff was directed to provide all of the charts in the agenda package to members of Council, in colour.
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 9, 2011 - 118 - CITY OF KITCHENER
Mr. Gross then spoke of next steps noting that management has chosen two pilot projects: the first
being pavement and bridges and the second being the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex. He
advised that they were chosen because they are high value assets; further, projects dealing with
buildings are different than those dealing with linear assets. He also advised that the projects have
not yet been started as a terms of reference is required as well as a request for proposal.
Several members of Council questioned these choices, how they were made, why they were made
and whether Council has any input into this process. Mr. Chapman advised that staff will prepare a
report for Council in this regard.
In response to a question about cost, Mr. Gross advised that the $150,000 cost has already been
approved in the budget. He noted that this amount of investment equals 1 /100t" of 1 % of the value of
the assets. The pilot project will give: a description of the assets; the levels of service; and, growth
and demands. The pilot will also provide a consumption profile, a risk profile, the consequences of
failure; and, a description of life cycle strategies to reach the maximum life expectancy. Pilot projects
on these two assets are less expensive to undertake because some of the necessary information
already exists.
Mr. Chapman advised that he would like to have a report prepared on these pilot projects in light of
the questions raised today.
Moved by Councillor D. Glenn-Graham
Seconded by Councillor B. loannidis
"That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider two litigation /potential
litigation matters."
Carried.
On motion the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
MAYOR CLERK