Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 26, 1999 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Mr. Stewart stated that the estimated costs are comparable to what other cities are spending. In <br />fact, on average they spend quitc a bit more. He indicated that he has worked with over 40 other <br />cities nationwide and some projects have cost up to $800,000. Therefore, the proposed project <br />cost of $120,000 is on the low side ofthe average cost to most cities and the high $100,000's is <br />more typical. <br /> <br />Mr. Stewart noted that the technology is expensive, however, the level of sophistication makes <br />the program usable. He indicated that a large portion of the cost is the labor and miscellaneous <br />parts, He expressed his confidence that the project has been brought down to its minimum <br />acceptable quality level. Any further reductions would adversely affect the quality of the system. <br /> <br />Mr. Stewart offered to provide the City Council with costs of other cities throughout the Twin <br />City area who have invested in audio/visual programs. He apologized for the level of technical <br />information in the letter he provided to staff. He had not expected the letter itselfto be included <br />in the agenda packet. Council member Malone asked whom the letter was intended for. Mr. <br />Stewart stated that he had written the letter for the City staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger stated that, due to the amount oftime spent researching this project, staff has <br />gained an understanding of some of the components. The technical changes involve pieces of <br />equipmcnt that are difficult to explain without being directly involved with the general system. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone reiterated that an estimated $120,000 project cost seems to be too high. <br />He stated that the fact that other cities spend much more money does not impress him and he <br />remains skeptical. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski agreed that $120,000 is a lot of money. However, she pointed out <br />that the new City Hall building should include technology that meets the current standards and <br />the expectations of at least half of the City residents. She expressed her disapproval of cutting <br />out the overhead camera. The City currently uses the old overhead projector and she does not <br />want to move backward with the technology. She expressed her hope that the project cost would <br />not exceed the estimated $120,000 and stated that the overhead camera is a minimum <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated that, given the amount of money being invested in the new City <br />Hall, the technology being proposed is needed and the projected costs seem to be appropriate. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted that staff was looking for direction on how to proceed with the program. He <br />stated that he is in favor of moving forward on the basis of the outline presented this evening. <br />Although he is not an expert, he does believe that the proposed budget amount is close to where <br />the proj ect costs will end up for the system the City wants, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst agreed that the overhead camera should remain in place, This type of system <br />would level the playing field for those making presentations and allow everyone the chance to <br />communicate effectively to the City. He suggested that a screen should also be included in the <br />event the equipment does not work properly, He stated that the day is coming when all <br />