pages: CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-03-03 | 12 | more time if there will be little response; expressed support for moving forward, with the clarification from the City Attorney that no RFP is necessary. The City Manager stated that he recommends giving some time for responses based on previous respondent's inability to provide sufficient economics; new respondents could learn from the previous experience. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is proposing to ask for updated responses. Councilmember Vella stated that she is requesting amended responses based on updated information. Councilmember Oddie questioned whether the proposal is to limit the responses to the three previous respondents; inquired about the deadline for updated responses. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded a four-week window is preferred. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for an open RFQ process; stated if the time- frame is the same, there might be others wanting to respond. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the process feels loose; others have expressed interest; should only three respond, only a little time will be lost; staff should make a recommendation by a specific date; it is beneficial to put the RFQ out and see if others respond, based on timing. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has heard members of the Council lament the loss of five months' time; time is of the essence; requested clarification about unsolicited RFQ responses. The City Attorney stated the Council has wide ranging latitude; Council could direct staff to provide various items, so long as all parties are provided a fair process, opportunity, and reasonable time to respond. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the report lists both RFQ and RFP terms; there is a difference; RFP's typically contain visuals; questioned whether an RFQ is being done. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands APC's desire to be involved in the process; noted APC are potential material beneficiaries of the process; ACP's involvement should be welcomed; the process is transparent and fair; expressed support for entities that do good work for the City of Alameda; stated that he previously analyzed the work from APP related to Site A; that he has no qualms about Catellus expressing interest or moving forward; that he is unsure about Brookfield. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 9 | CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf |