Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Anderson questioned why Staff was recommending John Oliver. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that John Oliver has done satisfactory work for the City and <br />with private developers in the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that there is a $50,000 difference between John Oliver and the <br />low bid, and based on the document that the Committee received he had a problem with ignoring <br />the bid from Progressive Engineering. Before he is willing to accept the bid he would like to <br />have some more support for John Oliver. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman noted that he would like to see more documentation also. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec requested that the City Engineer research more information on cost overruns that <br />have been happening with the bidding process. He stated that he was concerned that there is <br />such a big discrepancy with the low bid. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly questioned if the bidding process would be done by the same process <br />for each company. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that they are considered proposals, not bids and the difference is <br />that a company agrees that they cannot exceed a cost unless the scope of the project changes. <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos noted that it is important that they move ahead with the project, <br />but stated they can wait two weeks to bring back more information. He also noted that he and <br />the City Engineer reviewed the proposals separately, and both came to the determination of John <br />Oliver. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec requested that Staff review references. <br /> <br />Consensus was reached to table the item for more information. <br /> <br />Case #2: Amend Park and Trail Dedication Rates <br /> <br />Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that each December, as part of the annual resolution <br />adopting the Rates and Charges for the coming year, City Council reviews the Park Dedication <br />Cash Contributions. The increase is to reflect market forces and inflation in comparison to the <br />need for recreational improvements resulting from new development. At the September 9, 1999 <br />Park and Recreation Commission meeting, a two-part motion was made to increase the <br />residential cash contribution per unit to $1,200 for park dedication, $300 for the trail fee and <br />remove any cash distinction between rural and urban park dedication. The Council also <br />discussed the issue at length during a work session. <br /> <br />Finance Committee/September 28, 1999 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />