Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />September 14, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 13 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />Jeff Naren, Schlumberger, said the City will incur an upgrade cost for the <br />2,700 meters, and his proposal for this service is $30,000. His proposal to <br />upgrade the product to radio frequency is $75/per unit, Waterpro's bid was <br />$120/per unit. lastly, he feels Schlumberger has more experience and the <br />lower costs than the other competitors. <br /> <br />Egan feels that staff performed a thorough and thoughtful process to <br />determine the specifications. On numerous occasions, staff clarified the <br />proposals received from the three companies. To upgrade the meter, the <br />City would have a sizable investment to bring it to state of the art, and at <br />the same time the City needs to provide the purest, smartest technology. <br /> <br />Naren revised his original proposal from an installation cost of $38 to <br />$11.25, and this revision was the lowest cost for upgrading the existing <br />remotes. Egan said it is staff's opinion that the difference would be an <br />additional outlay of $30,000, which could be done in-house. <br /> <br />Egan noted that if Council prefers, staff will enlist the upgrade proposal <br />which Naren represents, however, she feels this decision will not be money <br />well spent. She verified that the radio transmitter proposed by Naren was <br />listed at $75, and WaterPro's transmitter costs was $125, however, the <br />$75 unit is not money well spent. Egan apologies and does not want to <br />publicly knock a vendor, but it is her responsibility to provide the <br />documentation that money is spent in the most appropriate manner. <br /> <br />Egan said the $75 unit has a site line radio read of 400 ft., with a minimal <br />time interval between reads of 5 seconds. These features do not provide <br />advantages over the smart gun remote, and is not money well spent. The <br />WaterPro product is an excellent product, but it is too expensive at this <br />time. The WaterPro transmitter provides the reads at intervals of 1 second <br />and the reading distance is between 1,800 and 5,000 feet. <br /> <br />Benke said that because the City is not looking into purchasing radio <br />technology at this time, it is possible that technology could change <br />tremendously in ten years. <br /> <br />Naren feels that the expenditure of $30,000 is absolutely necessary, and to <br />have a hand held computer to read meters without each home having an <br />identification number is a big mistake. He feels the City will need this <br />expenditure within 3 months after the installation of the system. Egan will <br />provide Naren with the requested documentation. <br /> <br />Ron Bassolt, Davies, asked how the City could award a $225,000 project <br />without a formal bid process. LeFevere confirmed that there was a formal <br />bid process. Egan verified that the process included a performance bond. <br /> <br />Motion by Williams, seconded by Larson, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THE <br />WATER METER READING SYSTEM. <br /> <br />5 Ayes. 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Water Meter <br />Remotes <br />Report 93-254 <br />Resolution 93-112 <br />