03/26/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Mayor Hardin and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to recommend Council adopt the resolution approving the City of Ramsey's 1997 Budget Calendar. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beahen, Beyer, Peterson and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case #3: Award Bid for Purchase of Articulated Loader with Snow Plow and Wing Finance Officer Hart stated that Council previously authorized requesting bids for a four-wheel drive loader with snow plow and wing. Two bids were received and opened. Both bids met ail minimum requirements. Four different options were bid. Staff is recommending awarding the bid to the CASE dealer for the $91,980 machine. After adding sales tax and the purchase of a five- year warranty, the total cost of the machine is $101,738.70. The addition of the first year infusion into the Equipment Replacement Fund, over a fifteen year life, makes the budget requirement $108,269.28 in order to purchase this machine. The total available budget is $115,500, net of the trade. The bid price includes the trade value of the old machine. Motion by Councilmember Beyer and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to recommend Council adopt the resolution receiving bids and awarding the contract to the CASE dealer for the purchase of the articulated loader with snow plow and wing. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beyer, Zimmerman, Beahen and Peterson. Voting No: None. Case #4: Contract Amendments for Ramsey Comprehensive Plan Updates (Transportation and Land Use Elements) Finance Officer Hart reported that in October 1993, the City of Ramsey entered into contracts with two firms for separate elements of the Comprehensive Plan updates. The City entered into a contract with BRW, Inc. to prepare the transportation element of the Plan update. This contract had a stated not-to-exceed amount of $15,880.00. The City also entered into a contract with RLK Associates LTD to prepare the land use element of the Plan update. This contract has a stated not- to-exceed price of $7,500.00. She noted that the updates to the plan have not gone as smoothly as had been anticipated by either fLrm. This is the basis behind the requests for contract amendments from each firm. Each firm states they spent more time due to unanticipated meetings with each commission individually as well as numerous joint meetings with the City Council and various commissions - over and above what had been anticipated originally. Staff monitors the bills as they are submitted and to date has refused payment on contract costs that would exceed the not-to- exceed contract amounts. BRW is asking for a contract amendment that would bring the not-to- exceed amount to a new total of $19,680, which would equate to a 23% contract overage. RLK is asking for a contract amendment of $6,112.50, which includes $300 of out-of-pocket expenses. Not including the out-of-pocket, the increase would bring the total not-to-exceed amount to $13,312.50, and would equate to a 77% overage from the original agreement. The funding for both elements was from CDBG planning moneys. At this time, all allotments have been exhausted. Therefore, CDBG is not a viable alternative to funding any possible contract amendments. She reiterated that the principal reason for the overages was additional meetings and requests for information from the Planning and Economic Development Commissions. As a result of this, staff is recommending some adjustment in the contract amounts. However, staff does not feel that the entire requests are supportable. She suggested that a portion of the cost increase can be recovered from the Economic Development Authority. Finance Committee/March 26, 1996 Page 2 of 5