Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly considers owner's‑rep contract for Lutak dock; questions on funding cap and grant interactions
Summary
The assembly introduced a resolution to authorize a contract with Moffett and Nickel for owner's‑representative services on the Lutak dock project, discussed changing the contract to 'not to exceed' a revised cap, and debated grant dependencies, EA limits and litigation overlap; the packet showed $440,910 but spoken figures for the amended cap varied in the meeting record.
Clerk introduced Resolution 26‑011221 on Jan. 13 to authorize the borough manager to execute a time‑and‑materials owner's‑representative contract with Moffett and Nickel for the Lutak dock (original packet figure: $440,910). Staff asked the assembly to amend the resolution to change contract language to an explicit 'not to exceed' cap after a spreadsheet/map error was identified.
Assemblymember Stickler moved to amend the resolution to read 'not to exceed $458,939' (the manager explained the change corrected an omitted $18,000 line item). The amendment was seconded and carried in the meeting; spoken figures for the amended cap varied slightly during the discussion and the transcript records inconsistent spoken numbers. Staff told the assembly the contract would be paid from enterprise funds as match for potential grant reimbursement and that project funds already appropriated would be reserved for the project itself.
Assemblymembers raised questions about contract terms (ownership of design work, invoicing cadence), contingency for permit and design options, tracking of expenditures against grant match, and the interaction of this procurement with ongoing litigation involving prior project consultants. Paul Wallace, on the Moffett and Nickel team, described the design‑build approach, bridging documents, a planned public‑involvement process and the strategy of staying within the footprint and concepts of the existing Environmental Assessment (EA) where possible to minimize additional permitting.
The assembly debated timing and white‑paper communications with the grantor (identified in the meeting as 'Merad' / 'Merit' in different places of the transcript) about conceptual changes; members emphasized the need to preserve permitting work already paid for while also seeking competitive best‑value design‑build teams.
The meeting record shows the amendment to the resolution wording was made, and extensive discussion followed; the transcript does not contain an unambiguous final roll call on the main resolution adopting the contract terms in its amended form.
