CC_Minutes_2012_0109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 09,2012 Page 11 cilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that previous training had not been as significant as it was perceived; and suggested continuing to go with low bid- ding processes and use of Requests for Proposals (RFP's). Mayor Roe clarified that, depending on the scope of projects, a different approach was used in the BVP process; and questioned if it was intended to use BVP across the board or only on certain projects. Mr. Brokke advised that it was staff's intent to use it, as had been presented to ASU for the overall $19 million package over a four year timeframe. Mr. Brokke advised that this process would provide for better projects and the most efficiency in the end; and created a partnership between contractors and the City. Once work was initiated with ASU, Mr. Brokke advised that the project could be better defined; and some smaller projects would be bundled based on economies of scale. Mr. Evenson concurred, noting the need for design work for the overall arching process, rather than individual projects, being critical. Mr. Evenson noted that there were more simple projects on which the City's own BVP procedure could be used, however, since the City would be working with multiple trade and design professionals over that four year timeframe, it would be more time consuming, costly and inefficient. Councilmember Johnson advised that upon his initial review of this request and the scope, it was of the opinion that it was a waste of money as suggested by Councilmember McGehee. However, upon further consideration, Councilmem- ber Johnson opined that having this tool available would be an asset to the com- munity in the future; and questioned how it would be determined who would be the third person trained, since the previously-trained City Attorney firm was no longer with the City. Mayor Roe clarified the difference in the City's Professional Services Policy ver- sus the application of this process. Mr. Brokke advised that he was currently in discussion with City Manager Malinen on who would be the third person for training. Councilmember Pust noted the need for the final contract to consider that it was a multi-year proposal, and needed a termination provision based on pending legisla- tion. Mr. Brokke concurred, noting that it had been discussed and was a good point. City Attorney Gaughan advised that the ASU contract included in the packet had been superseded with further revisions, as reaffirmed by his office earlier today,