08-08-2011 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (I2. ENGINEERING SERVICES, Continued) Printup stated he wanted a sense of what the Council thought but that he would be willing to discuss it with Council Member Franchot later. McMillan noted they are attempting to bring more of these types of items up for discussion at the City Council meeting level rather than in a work session. Franchot stated his point was that there was precious little discussion about an engineering RFP. McMillan indicated she has received a number of comments from the general public about doing an RFP process and that it was something she had been thinking about for awhile. McMillan commented the time is right to go through this process since there are not many projects going on in the City at the present time. McMillan stated she would prefer to discuss more of these items at City Council meetings rather than in work sessions since it is important for the public to hear everyone's rationale. Franchot indicated he would not disagree with that idea. Loftus asked whether the Council would like to see a draft RFP at the next meeting. Loftus indicated she would need a motion to approve the final RFP. Printup stated another piece of information that he would like to see is a total of what the City has paid in engineering costs or a vendor list for the past four years. Loftus-noted that would be included in the budget. Printup indicated he would also like to see a vendor analysis. Printup stated he would like to have that broken down in descending order of the top 20 percent of bills that are paid. McMillan requested the Council be provided with the draft RPF a few days prior to the next Council meeting. i CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 12a. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 3572 LIVINGSTON AVENUE — RESOLUTION NO. 6067 Mattick stated the building inspector has found another badly fire damaged building. The City has attempted without success to have the owner repair or remove the hazardous building and clean up the property. Based on the findings outlined in the Staff report, Staff recommends proceeding with a hazardous building action. It is anticipated that all remediation and legal expenses associated with this cause of action will be assessed against the property. Franchot asked if the house is considered totaled. • Mattick indicated it did sustain some pretty serious fire damage as well as water damage and that it is the opinion of the building inspector that it is not salvageable. Page 19 of 21