My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 05/08/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2007
>
Minutes - Council - 05/08/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:33:21 PM
Creation date
5/21/2007 2:24:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
05/08/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Policy Board be kept in the loop and able to review the information since they have a strong <br />interest and ownership in that project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen questioned why the bid is recommended to be awarded to Bolton & <br />Menk, as WSB appears to be the lowest responsible bidder. <br /> <br />Civil Engineer II Linton replied with the WSB proposal they would still need to complete the <br />wetland function and values work through another contract. There is synergy to integrating both <br />plans and working with the water resources management plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen expressed concern in not giving everyone the same criteria to start out <br />with and the subjectivity. He questioned if the WSB bid is more than Bolton & Menk after <br />everything is said and done. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen pointed out the recommendation is based on more than cost. The <br />scoring table shows that Bolton & Menk marked the highest in the eight criteria; cost was one <br />factor that was looked at. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson indicated one of the main questions relative to the selection process <br />was whether there were examples of projects the firm completed that were over budget or within <br />budget. WSB's answers to those questions were that they have always been within budget after <br />obtaining amendments to the contract. Mr. Olson pointed out this does not say they are willing <br />to do the project at a not-to-exceed amount. Bolton & Menk's response was that this is the price <br />and they will finish the project for that amount. Mr. Olson stated this answer provided staff with <br />more confidence. Looking at the professional projects and experience are extremely important to <br />weigh into the decision; it is not just a dollar for dollar bid. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen explained his concern is with a significant amount of subjectivity being <br />involved. The more they can eliminate the subjectivity the more comfortable he feels. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look noted the Metropolitan Council is requiring this, and he tends to duck <br />when the Metropolitan Council starts requiring things. They are looking at $155,000 to conduct <br />the study, which he understands is funded through the stormwater utility fund, but it is a <br />substantial amount of money. This is somewhat of an unfunded mandate being delivered by the <br />Metropolitan Council. This study is specified by State law. This is similar to the water <br />treatment plant that will be a substantial cost to the City and is being brought on by the DNR. <br />He wanted to raise to raise this and they can hopefully help citizens understand why they are <br />going though some of this and the costs associated. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Strommen, seconded by Councilmember Olson, to award the <br />contract for the Water Resources Management Plan update to Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the not to <br />exceed amount of$154,035. <br /> <br />Motion carried. V oting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Strommen, Olson, Dehen, Elvig, <br />Jeffrey, and Look. Voting No: None. . <br /> <br />City Council / May 8, 2007 <br />Page 10 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.