Consideration of the Response to Request For Proposals No. 2012-49:  Purchase of property for Core Services Maintenance Facility located on the northwest corner of West Kaibab Lane and South Thompson Street.

Award of this property purchase will provide the necessary acreage for the new Core Services Maintenance Facility and some structures to house Fleet Maintenance and Public Works. 

In the Fiscal Year 2013 budget we have appropriated $28,295,000 in account 403-2418-691-4104 for the Core Services Maintenance Facility. Execution of this purchase is contingent upon voter approval on November 6, 2012 of Ballot Question 406.  If this bond initiative is approved by the voters, bonds will be sold to acquire the property and additional infrastructure.  In addition to bonds being sold the City will be selling two pieces of City owned property and re-instituting the $2.50 per ton Landfill surcharge to help support the overall project.

Maintain and deliver quality, reliable infrastructure.  This property purchase for the new Core Services Maintenance Facility will provide maintenance and support of the delivery of core City services and programs including:  street maintenance, snow plowing and clearing operations, drainage maintenance, pot hole and side walk repair and street sweeping; residential and commercial trash and recycling collection, bulking trash collection; maintenance of all City vehicles and equipment, including fire, police, streets, solid waste, and water and wastewater department vehicles; maintenance operations for all City parks and athletic fields.

Yes. Council approved a similar ballot question for the November 2010 bond election for $42 million dollars, which was not approved by the voters.   The Core Services Maintenance Facility was introduced to Council during the April 2012 Budget Retreat and approved for appropriation.  The Council approved Resolution 2012-30 to place the proposed project on the November 2012 bond election.   

Option A:  Declare the response submitted by F.W. Thompson to be the sole responsive bid and authorize the purchase of the property with the contingencies described above;
Option B:  Reject the proposal and continue to look for alternative funding sources;
Option C:  Reject the proposal and continue existing operations in the existing locations;
Option D:  Reject the proposal and consider a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for a future date;

The existing Core Services Maintenance Facility is located at 419 N. Mogollon, Flagstaff, Arizona.  This facility was originally built as a horse barn for the Army Corps of Engineers and was later purchased by the City of Flagstaff and used as a Public Works yard.  Over the years, there have been numerous structures built on this property as growth dictated. The existing facility is not adequate to maintain the numerous vehicles and equipment necessary to provide core services.  A new facility would also provide an indoor space for all fleet maintenance repairs, some of which are currently performed outdoors in inclement weather, including snow.

The City has been in need of a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for many years.  The City has outgrown the existing facility and core service operations are scattered throughout the City.  In 2010, Council approved a bond initiative to construct a new facility on McAllister Ranch located on West Rt. 66.  The bond question was for a total dollar amount of $42 million to build the new facility, which included all new infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, electricity, as well as Rt. 66 road improvements for traffic flow). This measure was not approved by the voters.  At the April 2012 Budget Retreat the project was discussed and Council approved setting budget authority for the project.  The Council then voted on July 17, 2012 to approve the measure for a November election through Resolution 2012-30. 

The City conducted a Request For Proposals (RFP) and one (1) proposal response was submitted by F.W. Thompson. The RFP outlined five (5) evaluation criteria as follows:  Location (20%), Quality of on-site and off-site infrastructure of utilities and roadways (20%), Usable existing facilities that would interact with the Public Works function (20%), Possible phased approach to purchase land (10%) and Possible purchase of current City owned property (30%).

After evaluation of the proposal response submitted by F.W. Thompson, the City began negotiating purchase terms.

The proposal from F.W. Thompson for the purchase of 16.75 acres meets the evaluation criteria set forth in the Requests for Proposals issued by the City.

 

The City will be able to operate from a new Core Services Maintenance Facility in a more cost effective manner by providing City services from a centralized location, allowing cost savings on fuel when moving vehicles from various storage locations around the City to the current yard.  Cost-related efficiencies also include having street maintenance, storage of materials (cinders, deicer, sand, rock, signs, gravel), snow plowing and clearing operations personnel, equipment and administration of these functions co-located in order to respond and perform drainage maintenance, pot hole and side walk repair and street sweeping; residential and commercial trash and recycling collection, bulking trash collection; maintenance of all City vehicles and equipment, including fire, police, streets, solid waste, and water and wastewater department vehicles; maintenance operations for all City parks, trails and athletic fields. 

INFORM:  Public participation goal is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems and inefficiencies, the desired needs, the value added benefits and the alternatives and/or solutions.

Option A:  Declare the response submitted by F.W. Thompson to be the sole responsive bid and authorize the purchase of the property with the contingencies described above;
Option B:  Reject the proposal and continue to look for alternative funding sources;
Option C:  Reject the proposal and continue existing operations in the current locations;
Option D:  Reject the proposal and consider a new Core Services Maintenance Facility for a future date.