Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Methods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs resolution to add build-operate-transfer procurement to city toolbox, 5–1 in committee
Summary
A resolution to authorize use of the state’s build-operate-transfer (BOT) procurement method passed committee with a favorable recommendation; proponents said the method offers timing and cost-control advantages and is optional, not mandatory.
The Community Investment Committee voted to forward a resolution authorizing use of the state’s build‑operate‑transfer (BOT) procurement method, a procurement tool city staff said could provide additional flexibility for large infrastructure projects.
Eric Horvath, presenting for the administration, described the BOT model as a procurement alternative that combines a developer selection process with negotiated design and construction terms, allowing a developer to build and operate infrastructure for a set period before transferring it to the city. Horvath said the method has been state law for more than 20 years and is similar in purpose to other alternative procurement methods such as design‑build or construction manager at risk.
Horvath said BOT can help control timing and cost for complex projects and gave the Fort Winds Field and a downtown parking/garage example (Great Lakes Capital) as scenarios where BOT could be advantageous. He emphasized the resolution is enabling only; it authorizes the city to use the method in future procurements if staff and council choose.
Committee members asked whether BOT would override local procurement goals such as MWBE or resident‑preference policies. Horvath replied that the state statute is largely silent on those items and that local home‑rule requirements would still apply; the city could adopt and apply local goals alongside a BOT procurement. The presenter also noted that no specific project was currently identified; the resolution would add BOT to the city’s procurement options.
The committee voted to send the resolution (Bill 25-22) forward with a favorable recommendation. The clerk recorded five ayes and one nay on the motion.
Ending: The resolution will go to the full council; staff said they will provide additional detail and follow-up to council members who requested more information before full council consideration.
