Laserfiche WebLink
' '•AP ' OLJ <br /> 4111 Mounds View City Council Page 8 <br /> Regular Meeting October 24, 1994 <br /> Rebelein offered that the Charter Commission recommends a <br /> "yes" vote on both amendments. <br /> B. Presentation of the Proposed 1995 Budget <br /> Mayor Linke requested Council's permission to move Item B. to <br /> the end of the agenda. There was no objection. <br /> C. Consideration of Backhoe Award <br /> Mike Ulrich, Director of Public Works, explained that on <br /> September 21, 1994, Staff received bids for the proposed 1995 <br /> loader backhoe. This was done at that time because the City <br /> of Maplewood was also advertising for a backhoe and Staff had <br /> cited possibilities where both cities could realize a cost <br /> savings in clerical reductions, advertising expenses, possible <br /> model year increases and possibility of more competitive <br /> bidding by having two machines purchased. Five vendors were <br /> contacted and provided with preferred specifications. The <br /> bids received were as follows: <br /> Carlson Tractor No Bid <br /> Midwest Machinery No Bid <br /> Lano Equipment $63, 000 <br /> Ziegler $82,893 <br /> Long Lake Tractor $91,483 <br /> There were two items that were required of the vendors. They <br /> were to provide a demo to the City and a list of area-wide <br /> users in the metro area. These two items were omitted by Lano <br /> Equipment and Long Lake Tractor. These two companies also did <br /> not comply to the performance guarantee bond requirement. <br /> Staff recommends the 1995 backhoe award to Ziegler for <br /> $88,281. 05 contingent upon the adoption of the 1995 budget <br /> which includes funding for this purchase. This purchase is <br /> funded equally from the Water Capital Account, Sewer Capital <br /> Account and the Surface Water Capital Account. <br /> Councilmember Trude questioned the large difference between <br /> the Lano Equipment bid and the Ziegler bid. <br /> • Ulrich replied that the machine Lano Equipment bid is not even <br /> on the market right now and has not been tested. The <br /> maintenance costs are unknown. Ulrich cited some of the <br /> problems with their current backhoe which was purchased as the <br /> low bid in 1986 and emphasized reasons not to make the same <br /> mistakes on this purchase. He also reported that the Lano <br /> 1111 Equipment backhoe did not have enough breakout force. It did <br />