Laserfiche WebLink
Consensus was the that all the property owners from this subject area <br />~hould ~ubmit a tax increment financing application for staff to review <br />in relation to the tax increment policy council will be adopting. <br /> <br />Case #9: Review Maintenance Building Bids: <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that at it's last meeting, Council expressed concern <br />with the legal aspects of ICM's building maintenance bid. He has <br />researched and law says that Council can waive irregularities when it does <br />not result in a substantial hardship; successful bids must conform with <br />specs and if not, a new proposal should be reviewed; to award a bidder not <br />bidding specifically as requested would be unfair to other bidders. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley stated that he has reviewed the bids and in his opinion the <br />cost of contracting out building maintenance would exceed the cost of <br />performing the same function in-house by $20,000-$30,000 per year. Mr. <br />Hartley recommended that Council reject all bids and consider hiring <br />someone to perform building maintenance functions. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Cox stated that he feels the bid proposal was assembled in <br />such a way to make the bid process and privatization appear negative so <br />that bids will be rejected. Councilmember Cox stated that he disagrees <br />with the e~timated number of hours for various functions listed in the <br />proposal; privatization was considered because maintenance items are not <br />being accomplished in-house, items that would take a minimum amount of <br />time but are not done because they are considered by the employees to be <br />unpleasant tasks. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember $orteberg and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to <br />reject all bids for building maintenance. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Councilmember DeLuca stated that in-house employees <br />tend to expend more time performing a task; those that contract their <br />services are paid by the job which eliminates the tendency to waste time. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Acting Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Sorteberg, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. Absent: Mayor Reimann. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartle¥ stated that he did not prepare the bid spec with any intention <br />of having the outcome appear one way or the other. Also, as a local <br />government unit, the city is required to take bids when it is practical to <br />do so; this bid spec was an attempt to address the bid process and be able <br />to call upon someone to do the work when it needs to be done. Mr. Hartley <br />suggested that building maintenance needs be categorized and bids be let. <br /> <br />Mr. Adriaens and Mr. Gorecki were present and stated that a necessary and <br />major part of maintenance is establishing and coordinating a schedule for <br />ongoing maintenance. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated that building maintenance should be a function <br />of the Public Works Department and that supervisor should be capable of <br />establishing and coordinating ongoing maintenance programs. <br /> City Council/August 11, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 12 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />