2003-09-29 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1898 September 29, 2003 band, but specifying the quality sought. Once specified, vendors were contacted for prices on equipment they provide. If the price differed from the one set by the City, they asked vendors to explain why the prices differed. The same procedure was followed for "free weights." In addition to general standards, there were preferred standards: "all things being equal, if you can provide these elements we would like them as well." Next Ms. Welsch sought clarification of the term "preferred", asking if it meant "things we would prefer to have the vendors bid on." Mr. Moton responded that "preferred" does not necessarily mean a "preferred brand", but "preferred in terms of amenities or features." Some of these features are just enhancements, and just a preference. He explained that many bidders familiar with the process, generally speaking, will provide two examples: one at the Iow end and one which is a luxury package, because they understand that most cities must adhere to budgets. Ms. Welsch continued to ask if the alternate prices shown, represented the "higher end", and Mr. Moton said they were indeed the upgrades. Mr. Ollendorff then stated that he would provide the Council with copies of the entire specification packet to review and to see how the recommended items meet the specifications. He added that he would not argue with a bidder's assertion that "higher price means better quality"; that could be true. The motion carried 3-1, with Ms. Welsch voting Nay. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM # 5 (Request for Discussion): 1148 Ferguson Liquor License Upgrade: Mr. Ollendorff recommended denial of the request to upgrade the license from beer to all types of intoxicating liquor by the package. Illegal activity at this location has required law enforcement attention on a recurring basis. Mr. Ollendorff said there was an application to upgrade a liquor license for 1148 Ferguson, from sale of beer to sale of all kinds of intoxicating liquor by the package. He recommended strongly that this be rejected because the business poses an on-going problem for the Police Department. Mr. Lieberman moved to deny the request, and Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion. Mr. Lieberman shared some history of this business with the Council, pointing out that over a period of approximately 20 years it has posed a neighborhood problem in keeping the peace in the area of its location. Problems centered on cleanliness and safety, and going to a "full license will exasperate" these problems and he agreed strongly with Mr. Ollendorff. The motion to deny carried unanimously. Page 5