CC_Minutes_2017_0410 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 10, 2017 Page 7 Councilmember McGehee stated that she had no problem with the desire to keep the project moving; but admitted that she did have a problem if the project itself was not well-thought out and that an opportunity to vote could be taken at any check-in point. Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council members maintained the right to make any motion at any time. As the party responsible for drafting the document, for clarification and directive purposes, City Attorney Gaughan sought clarification if the City Council’s con- cerns were with the Termination Clause provision of the contract. Mayor Roe responded that it was not, but clarified that concerns were with the product deliverable coming out of Task 1. In that case, City Attorney Gaughan advis ed that the problem would persist in this agreement as written; clarifying that the City Council wanted revised language providing for a formal presentation and check-in by consultants with the City Council at the conclusion of Task 1 and at the conclusion of Task 2 as well. Mayor Roe agreed with that statement; noting that the understanding would then be that the City Council would have to authorize going out for bid at the conclu- sion of Task 2. However, City Manager Trudgeon advised that in accordance with the requested Council Action in lines 40 -54 of the RCA, putting the project out for bid is part of that proposed motion language. Mayor Roe stated that was not his understanding. As the maker of the motion, and in agreement with that intent, Councilmember Willmus sought further clar ification from Mayor Roe on whether he was seeking a hard break at the end of Task 1 before proceeding to Task 2. Mayor Roe clarified that, at a minimum, he was looking for that hard break before going out for bids (e.g. at the end of Task 2), and also anticipated a presentation and check-in at the end of Task 1 to make sure any plans and specifications for Task 2 are in line with the City Council’s understanding and direction. Discussion ensued regarding possible amendme nt to the motion to consider sepa- rate City Council action to go out for bids; with City Manager Trudgeon pointing out that the motion currently on the floor included the entire scope of services as presented in the agreement (Attachments A and B), with the addition of a check- in at the end of Phase 1; and with City Attorney Gaughan clarifying that his u n- derstanding of Mayor Roe’s requested action also included a check-in at the end