CR 91-197 Contract For Vehicle TowingY 0 A'
CD
0 P K
September 3, 1991 Council Rpt 91-197
CONTRACT FOR VEHICLE TOWING AND IMPOUNDING
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: Move that
the Council approve a one yea extension of the current Contract
for Vehicle Towing and Impounding as 12rovided in the contract
document.
Overview
The current towing contract expires November 30, 1991. Contract
provisions allow the City the option of two one-year extensions.
The Police Department is satisfied with the current contractor's
performance.
Primary Issues to Consider
1. Has the performance of the current contractor been
satisfactory?
2. What advaritages would there be in re-advertising for bids
versus granting an extension?
Supporting Information
0 Analysis of Issues
0 Alternatives
0 Recommendation
10 Memorandum from Nancy Anderson
All
Heather M. Alex
Administrative Services Manager
91-197 Page 2
Analysis of Issues
Based on the information presented,, Council has two primary
issues to consider.:
1. Has the performance of the current contractor been
satisfactory?
The Police Department is satisfied with the contractor's
performance. Although complaints are recevied periodically, none
have proven to be a violation of the towing contract or outside
the contractor's rights under existing local ordinance and state
statute.
The Community Development Department indicates that Mr. Hughes is
in the process of completing the work required by his conditional
use permit.
2. What advantages would there be in re-advertising for bids?
The advantages of a yearly bid process is that the City is given
the opportunity to review bids from a variety of potential
contractors, thereby affording the City a wider choice in
providing services. More competition also could lead to lower
prices and/or improved customer service to be passed on to
Hopkins residents.
Given the current requirement that the storage facility be
located within the corporate limits of the City of Hopkins, the
potential for a variety of bids is diminished. This contract
year, only two bids were received: one from the current
contractor and the other from a party whose lot was not located
in the city limits, albeit quite close by. This effectively made
the current contractor the sole bidder.
If Council were to change the location requirement to include a
reasonable distance from the City limits, more bids would be
received. Council would have to weigh the benefits of more bids
and possibly lower cost to residents against the convenience of a
lot located in the city.
91 -197
Page 3
Alternatives
1. Approve motion to extend the contract for one additional
year.
2. Do not approve the motion to extend and re- advertise for bids
given the current locations restrictions.
3. Table the motion and schedule a worksession to discuss
amending the lot location requirements prior to re
advertising for bids.
Recommendation
Staff recommends alternative 1.
C I T Y O F H O P R I N S
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 22, 1991
TO: Tom Harmening
FROM: Nancy Anderson
SUBJECT: Status of Conditional Use Permit for Dick Hughes
Last winter Dick Hughes was granted permission to move his
auto storage yard 20 feet to the east. Mr. Hughes has done
some of the work and now appears. to be completing the rest
of the work. To my knowledge Mr. Hughes is in compliance
with his conditional use permit once the work is complete.