My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002-11-21_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2002
>
2002-11-21_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 2:56:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2005 11:45:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/21/2002
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Y-n <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION <br />Date: 11/18/2002 <br />Item #: VIII. H. <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Approved: <br /> <br />Ju~&-b <br /> <br />Agenda Section: <br />Report <br /> <br />Item: Update, Discussion about Bond Referendum and Building Program <br /> <br />Introduction <br />On November 5, 2002, Roseville voters approved a $9.7 million bond referendum for Police and <br />Public Works Maintenance facilities. <br /> <br />Staff now wishes to hear Councilmembers' thoughts and feelings about two key issues: I. The <br />process by which we select an architectural fiml; 2. The timing for a bond sale or sales. <br /> <br />1. Selecting an Architect <br /> <br />We could either seek requests for bids or proposals from metro architectural finns, or directly <br />negotiate and contract with Ankeny Kell, the architects who drew up the building and site <br />concepts for this project. <br /> <br />If we went out with an RFP or RFB, approximately one month would be spent developing the <br />RFPIB, one month for metro architects to submit a bid or proposal, and then one month <br />evaluating the responseslbids and having the City Council select the winning firm. Given the <br />current building climate, we would probably receive many bids/proposals and we might save <br />money on architectural fees. The magnitude of this potential saving in fees is probably in the <br />tens of thousands of dollars. (The "standard" architectural fee is approximately 10% of the total <br />project cost. In this case, with a roughly $10 million budget, architects' fees for this project <br />could be approximately $1 million.) In addition to cost savings, it is also possible we would <br />receive a proposal or bid from an architect suggesting an unusually innovative design for the site <br />and the buildings that we may not have otherwise considered. <br /> <br />If we directly negotiate with Ankeny Kell, we can build on the work they have already done for <br />the City on this project over the last six months without any significant delay or learning curve. <br />We have a good working relationship with Ankeny Kell and are happy with their preliminary <br />design work. <br /> <br />2. Timing for a Bond Sale or Sales <br /> <br />Attached to this report is a memo from Finance Director Chris Miller outlining the issues relating <br />to a bond sale. Plainly, with record low interest rates, this is a good time to sell bonds. <br />However, we don't need bond proceeds right now since drawing up construction plans and <br />securing a general contractor will take approximately six to nine months. In addition, there are <br />federal and state regulations governing bond sales and the use of bond proceeds that we must <br />comply with. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.