AgdaPkt 2009-09-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Billy James asked why this consultant (item 6.1 H) was picked and why the dollars are coming first and then the negotiation of the agreement. He said the consultant has an office in Minnesota and he appreciates the disclosure of the proximity with Cargill but his hope is that the relationship is impartial. Mayor Foust said that regarding the DUI issue this will come back with the City Manager providing some information. Mayor Foust read the titles of the items to be approved via the Consent Calendar, except items 6.1 G and 6.1 H. MIS BainlHoward to approve the Consent Calendar, except for the items pulled. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote. Discussion on 6.1 G Chu Chang, Building, Infrastructure and Transportation Director provided answers regarding who will collect the funds and reimburse the City. One Council Member wanted to be sure that the handling of the Assessment District will be done by the City of San Carlos and Redwood City will then be reimbursed. Mr. Chang confirmed those facts. MI Hartnett/Ira to approve Consent Calendar item 6.1 G. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote. Discussion on agenda item 6.1 H. City Manager Ingram provided information stating that this does not create a conflict of interest because the current relationship is between Redwood City staff and consultant and not DMB. He made it clear that this is not an impartial review of the proposal but a review of the application that was submitted, and the consultant's role will be to add staff capacity and resources to review the proposal. He explained that this is just the first review of the application and what this contract creates is staff capacity. Mr. Ingram explained that the experience that this team brings to the table is noteworthy. Regarding the selection process, the City Manager clarified that various firms had shown an interest on this project however the City Manager took the initiative to seek out firms that are used to this level and scale of a project. Mr. Ingram said that they need a firm that has project management skills and that this firm has this expertise. He also provided some information on how staff makes these types of decisions. Mr. Ingram said that he takes full responsibility for this recommendation. Council asked why it is best to have one large firm versus two small firms. Mr. Ingram explained that having one firm that is accountable to staff is easier than having to manage two firms. One Council Member clarified that ultimately the determination of the validity and viability of the application are in the hands of the city and not the consultant. One Council Member explained that the fact that the city controls the process and makes the final determination, are reassuring factors. One Council Member wanted to clarify that this is one step in a long process. She asked that the City Manager clarify what the scope of this firm will be. Mr. Ingram referred to the staff report and read the first goal that was written down at the bottom of page one. In conclusion, the consultant in collaboration with JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 PAGE 3