Laserfiche WebLink
Mr, Bocian said that this project is not a done deal until Council takes action to approve <br />the contract. He indicated that $100,000 has been budgeted for this proiect with reserve money <br />for the medians. This project will not impact any projects that are planned for the Capital <br />Improvement Program. He noted that the bids for this project are valid for 30 days and staff <br />would mostly likely need to rebid this project if it was not approved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rrozosky provided the history related to this project. He would prefer to spend <br />$100,000 on other unfunded projects on something that benefited the entire community, such as <br />the need for lighted tennis courts at Pleasanton Middle School or the Alviso Adobe Park project. <br />He was not in favor of approving this project given the limit of funding that is currently available. <br /> <br /> There were no public speakers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked how much staff time and money had been invested in the design <br />work for this project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian said the solar contract was approximately $15,000 and the majority of the <br />funds have been expended. Staff has invested a considerable amount of time working on this <br />project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan saw the value of having gateway signs in the community. He supported Ms. <br />McGovern's suggestion to delay this project wait and include it as a part of the Operating <br />Budget and Capital Improvement Program process. This would allow Council the opportunity to <br />consider the impacts of other issues that it has been discussing, such as lighted tennis courts at <br />Pleasanton Middle School. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said the budget process would begin the second week in June. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked for clarification as to whether the bids for this project needed to be <br />rejected at this point, as the bids are only valid for 30 days. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho suggested that Council give staff the flexibility to negotiate the extension of <br />the bid with the contractor, or reject it depending on which alternative benefits the City. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern believed the design of the gateway signs is attractive and fits in with the <br />community's character. She was concerned about the amount of money that would be spent on <br />this project. She would prefer to consider this project as part of the Capital Improvement <br />Program process. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. McGovern, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, to direct staff to work <br />with Fluoresco Lighting and Signs Maintenance Corp. to extend the bid through the end <br />of July and if unsuccessful, reject the bids and begin the process over upon completion <br />of the review and adoption of the Capital Improvement Program. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if there would be a problem in extending the time frame for the bid? <br /> <br /> Ms. Tracy Nerland said it would not be a problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho believed the vendor might want to retain the contract and staff might be <br />successful in holding off on awarding the bid for this project until July. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 10 05/03/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />