HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Light and Power Committee 1988-02-190 0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
“Special”Light and Power Committee
February 19,1988
Committee:Chairman Hix,Trustees Brown and
Habecker
Attending:All
Also Attending:Mayor Dannels,Trustees Barker and
Dickinson,Town Administrator Hill,Town
Attorney White,Light and Power Director
Dekker,Public Works Director Widmer,
Assistant Public Works Director
Gerstberger,Planner Stamey,Clerk
0 ‘Connor
SERVICE BUILDING PROPOSALS -REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Due to the referral of this item by the Board of Trustees Febru
ary 9,1988,a “special”Light and Power Committee meeting was
held to reconsider the proposals for the Service Building.Staff
prepared and submitted a memorandum dated February 12,1988 which
listed the events and procedures used by the Selection Committee
to prepare a recommendation concerning consultant selection for
the Light and Power Service Facility.The Selection Committee
was comprised of Bob Dekker,Rich Widmer,Dick Gerstberger and
Steve Stamey.Work on the project began in May,1987 when the
Light and Power Department requested the Public Works Department
to assist in the evaluation of various sites being considered for
the new shop building.On January 27,1988,the Selection
Committee conducted interviews and prepared a recommendation for
the Light and Power Committee meeting scheduled for February 4th.
A summary of each of the six proposals was also provided.The
six firms were:Architectural Ventures,Inc.,The Neenan
Company,Rocky Mountain Consultants,Thorp Associates,Van Horn
Engineering and Surveying,and Ed Warner and Associates.Van
Horn proposed a different approach which did not include the
services of an architect.Architectural Ventures and Thorp
Associates appeared to have the greatest amount of flexibility in
their proposal.Based upon a good presentation,experience and
aesthetics,the six firms were narrowed down to
three——Architectural Ventures,The Neenan Company,and Thorp
Associates.The decision was very difficult;however,as Thorp
had experience in the design of service center facilities,and
the fact that Thorp was a local firm,staff submitted a recommen
dation for approval of the Thorp proposal.The reason Thorp
revised his original proposal was that the scope of work he
originally anticipated was over and above what was necessary for
the project.Aesthetics was also a high priority as the facility
will be located near Highway 36.
Public Works Directorsuggested the Town take a different ap
proach and not request fees on certain projects.Perhaps a field
of prospective firms should be interviewed and then “ranked”
based upon their capabilities.The Town could then negotiate
with the top firm to get the best possible price.Town Attorney
White advised the Town is not required to “bid”professional
services;however,public construction projects over $50,000 must
be bid.Director Widmer welcomed the Board of Trustees to
participate in the consultant selection process.
There being no further discussion,the Committee recommends
acceptance of the proposal in the amount not—to—exceed $28,800
submitted by Thorp Associates.
Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerkh8237988
n-&IES PARK
L BOARD OF TRUSTEES