CCP 05-10-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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