CC_Minutes_2005_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session - 07/18/05 Minutes - Page 18 Councilmember Schroeder, but - don't disagree with conclusion you're reaching - we tell those two that you can't submit RFP this year; we're elected to develop policy for staff to follow; respect what earlier council's have determined; uncomfortable with not allowing the present firms to submit RFP's without a clear policy. Councilmember Kough opined that, if the firms were doing a good job for the City, it shouldn't be necessary to change firms; and that the present City Council should determine their own policy. Councilmember Maschka expressed confusion that there was no record that this policy had not been adopted by ordinance. City Attorney Anderson, from the context of school districts and litigation, noted that there was nothing in the law that a "policy" had to be followed; but if it were deemed in the City's best interest to continue a relationship with a firm longer than six years, why prohibit those firms from submitting an RFP. Further discussion ensued regarding the policy; current firms; submission ofRFP's; Councilmember Ihlan opined her interest in reviewing several other ideas prior to making a decision; suggesting that the decision be delayed for several weeks. City Attorney Anderson opined that he was more comfortable with allowing the two firms under discussion to submit RFP's with full knowledge of the City's policy, rather than prohibiting them from submitting RFP's. Mayor Klausing suggested that the RFP process proceed, with everyone allowed to submit proposals, with notification and full disclosure to the two impacted parties of the policy language; and that revisions to the "policy" be dealt with at a later time, and as a separate item; with specific proposals on how to change. Councilmember Schroeder opined that the current policy should be followed, as developed by the City Council in the past after