CC_Minutes_2013_0325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 25,2013 Page 26 McGehee moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to enter into a non-binding Letter of Intent, but make the motion subject to City Attorney approval; and tak- ing into consideration potential installation on the fire station or any other facili- ties that staff feels may be appropriate. Additional discussion ensued regarding the Letter of Intent and $200 application fee that Newport Partners would be responsible for; timing of essence to get into the application process with Xcel based on the competitive nature of the program; a review by City Attorney Gaughan of his outstanding concerns,but recognizing the non-binding nature of the Letter of Intent for both parties; built in safeguards in place; and potential long-term budget savings. Councilmembers Etten and McGehee spoke in support of the motion. Councilmembers Willmus and Laliberte spoke in opposition to the motion with- out first having an opportunity to review the final Letter of Intent. Roll Call (as amended) Ayes: Etten; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: Willmus and Laliberte. Motion carried. 13. Business Items—Presentations/Discussions a. Discuss Best Value Practices Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke presented an overview of the pro- curement methods used by the City, including the Arizona State Model (ASU) Best Value Performance Information Procurement Systems (PIP) and the City of Roseville's Best Overall Value method, and the differences between the two pro- grams. Mr. Brokke noted that the Best Overall Value model was used for profes- sional services according to adoption of a 2012 policy. Mr. Brokke reviewed and compared the criteria and values for developed for each method; noting that both systems were still evolving, and involved education and training for staff and vendors on various projects, including the Park Renewal Program. City Manager Malinen addressed the professional services policy, as amended by the City Council to include the best value process, and insertion of the term "overall" to differentiate that method from the ASU model for best value pro- curement and statutory requirements. In hiring attorneys, janitors, construction management services, or recycling services, Mr. Malinen noted that the City was not statutorily bound by the lowest bid as typical for construction projects. Mr. Malinen agreed that staff continued to implement the best overall value process internally, and continued to refine the process as it was used, particularly with the weighting of ratings. Regarding the ASU model, Mr. Malinen advised that there