Laserfiche WebLink
CASE # FC 4 <br />' CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR RAMSEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES <br />[TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE ELEMENTS] <br />' By: Jessie Hart, Finance Officer <br />' Background: <br />In October of 1993, the City of Ramsey entered into contracts with two firms for separate <br />' elements of the Comprehensive Plan [Plan] updates. <br />The City entered.into a contract with BRW, Inc. to prepare the transportation element of the Plan <br />' update. This co4tract had a stated not -to- exceed amount of $15,880.00. The City also entered <br />into a contract With RLK Associates LTD to prepare the land use element of the Plan update. <br />This contract had a stated not -to- exceed price of $7,500.00. <br />As Council is well aware, both the transportation and land use updates have not gone as smooth <br />as had been anticipated by either firm. Thus the basis behind the requests for contract <br />' amendments from each firm. The attached correspondence from each firm provides information <br />detailing the causes for the requested amendments. <br />' Each firm states that substantially more time was required for unanticipated meetings with each <br />commission individually as well as numerous joint meetings with the City Council and various <br />commissions. [over and above what had been anticipated originally]. <br />Staff carefully monitors the bills as they are submitted for payment and has to date refused <br />payment on "contract" costs that would exceed the not -to- exceed contract amounts. <br />BRW is currently asking for a contract amendment that would bring the not -to- exceed amount to <br />a new total of $19,680 which would equate to a 23% contract overage. RLK is asking for a <br />contract amendMent of $6,112.50 [includes $300 of out -of- pocket expenses]. Not including the <br />out -of- pocket, the increase would bring the total not -to- exceed amount to $13,312.50 and would <br />' equate to a 77 %' overage from the original agreement. <br />The funding for both elements was from CDBG planning moneys. At this time, all allotments <br />' have been exhausted. Therefore, CDBG is not a viable alternative to funding any possible <br />contract amendments. <br />I! <br />L <br />The principal reason for the overages was additional meetings and requests for information from <br />the Planning and Economic Development Commissions. As a result of this, staff is <br />recommending some adjustment in the contract amounts. However, we don't believe the entire <br />requests are supportable. We also believe that a portion of the cost increase can be recovered <br />from the Economic Development Authority Fund. <br />1(L -? <br />