My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-02-2017 Parks & Rec Packet
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
03-02-2017 Parks & Rec Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 9:20:56 AM
Creation date
5/25/2017 11:32:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />The advantages to the RFP process would be that we would introduce some competition to the process <br />as well as different approaches. If we were to undertake an RFP, it will take some time to put one <br />together to address our areas of interest, solicit responses, evaluate proposals, interview firms and <br />make a selection. Depending on our final scope of services, there will be some costs to accomplish <br />this process, but it would seem to be money well spent given where things currently stand. <br /> <br />One other point to consider is what does this mean to 2017 planned projects? Do we complete the <br />Master Plan before undertaking major initiatives or do we move forward with projects as budgeted? I <br />know some members of the Council feel a more comprehensive look at things may be warranted <br />before we do major upgrades to facilities to ensure we have a coordinated approach to development <br />objectives. <br /> <br />The Commission should discuss these considerations and provide recommendations as they deem <br />appropriate.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.