Page 2 - September 26 2016
P. 2
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front THE WEEKLY ANCHOR MONDAY JULY 4, 2016 PAGE 2
continued from front
continued from front PAGE 2 MONDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 THE WEEKLY ANCHOR
continued from front
Council declines request to reconsider advertising bench decision
continued from front
by Adrienne Tait believes is not true as he was not informed staff said the RFP changes the “whole gist” of the
was dissatisfied with the proposal. program and believed Alpine Exposure would
Troy Sorensen of Alpine Exposure came The second concern cited was that the have to come up with an entirely new bid in
before council as a delegation at the regular specifics of his proposal had been revealed to order to fulfill the updated requirements. “How
council meeting on September 20 and council at the previous meeting and made do we know we are being unfair with a whole
requested they reconsider their August 23 public. new process? Your proposal would not be the
decision to move to a request for proposal The third concern was the vote to move to a same as the one presented. There will be
process this fall for the advertising request for proposal process, “thereby asking changes.”
benches.Alpine Exposure's previous contract my competitors to submit bids that would beat Councillor Gomuwka said, “This has drawn
was for a five year term and expired in 2014. my proposal published minutes earlier,” said on too long. I believe we have been unfair.
Mayor Greg Pasychny declared a conflict of Sorensen. This is not the biggest issue we have faced but
interest and excused himself from the The fourth concern was that the town ordered it is one of the most contentious.”
presentation, debate, and vote and left council the benches to be removed by September 30 After much discussion and debate Council
chambers while the issue was addressed. until the RFP process was complete at an defeated Boyce's motion (to rescind the August
During his presentation Sorensen outlined a estimated expense to Sorensen of 23 decision and sign a one year contract with
number of concerns including that he had not approximately $10,000. Alpine Exposure until October of 2018 at which
been invited to attend the August 23 meeting Sorensen posed the question, “How can I time they would move to a request for proposal
and believed he was misrepresented at that possibly compete in an RFP process where my process).
time. competitors know the number of benches, the Councillors Gomuwka and Boyce voted in
Sorensen confirmed he met with town locations of my benches, and my specific dollar favour of the motion while Councillors Bevan,
administration on August 12 in accordance with bid?” Strang, and Chouinard voted against.
the directive set following his presentation on “I believe the RFP process has been The Request for Proposal process for
July 19. Sorensen said the meeting was not a irreparably tainted due to the town publishing advertisement benches on Town property will
negotiation but rather the town advised him of my bid,” said Sorensen. continue as planned.
their concerns with regards to the benches. Sorensen proposed he pay a permit fee and Since the meeting town administration has
At the conclusion of the August 12 meeting suggested the town move forward with the RFP contacted Mr. Sorensen and offered to allow
Sorensen agreed to draw up a first draft of his process in October 2018 which would then the benches to remain until the completion of
proposal, requested a list of benches that were allow him to submit a competitive proposal. the RFP process.
in need of repair, and understood, “we would CAO Mike Derricott admitted the town “mis- “We recognize there were parts of the process
go back and forth with revisions until an stepped” in the handling of the proposal when that did not happen as it should have and there
acceptable final draft was reached.” they brought it forward. “That was a first were issues that made the process more difficult
“The other misrepresentation that occurred draft,” Derricott said, “It was identical to the than it needed to be. We still believe an open and
was the implication that I 'dropped the ball,' contract. We have some real challenges with transparent RFP process is the right way to go,”
and that I 'waited so long to come before the benches that need to be addressed.” said CAO Mike Derricott, “The intention was
council,” said Sorensen, “I want to be very Councillor Jim Gomuwka verified that never to cause direct harm or discomfort for Mr.
clear that I wanted to negotiate the agreement Sorensen was still willing to participate in the Sorensen and I think it is important we to try to
years ago and was specifically told by Town RFP process to which Sorensen said he was, alleviate some of the pressure this has caused.”
staff to patiently wait. If anyone has 'dropped with an October 2018 start date. Gomuwka Sorensen said he does plan to submit a
the ball' it is the Town of Edson.” said, “Mr. Sorensen has given us an easy revised proposal.
Sorensen said he has done everything avenue to take to move forward.”
requested by the Town including waiting to Councillor Brian
renegotiate, added a red border to the benches Boyce spoke in favor
at his expense, removed benches for the Tour of of Sorensen's proposal
Alberta, repaired benches promptly when and said, “This has
contacted by the town, and drafted a new been mishandled going Sid's Safety
agreement within hours of being asked. back years. Mr.
Sorensen said he was not informed that the Sorensen has been put
draft was unacceptable and “staff did not make at a disadvantage by & Janitor al
any effort to negotiate a mutually acceptable his proposal coming
agreement like they were ordered to.” forward. The process
Sorensen addressed his concerns with the was tainted.” Boyce
outcome of the August 23 council meeting. criticized town 5928 - 3rd Avenue, Edson, Alberta T7E 1R8
“I would like to talk about the August 23 administration and Phone: (780) 723-6575 Fax: (780) 723-6567
meeting, of which I was not informed or invited staff saying he believed Email: sidssafety@telus.net
to and at which four important things “they did not even give
happened,” said Sorensen. lip service to the
The first concern was regarding the statement negotiations.” NOTLEY might want to leave
that negotiations had failed, which Sorensen Councillor Strang
you in the cold this winter,
Neighbourhood but here at Sid’s Safety
we have a full line of
gathers to Winter Wear to keep you warm.
defeat rezoning
continued from front
concerns regarding the quality of Mayor Greg Pasychny said, “I
his work. They also said they have always and will continue to
would be amenable to him building support infill. We have approved
single family residents in the other infill projects but we never
neighbourhood but were opposed to had the community come out like
a multi-family unit. this. These are not 50 foot lots. At
Councillor Boyce acknowledged some point we got caught in our
that the lot in question is a double own bylaws. Your project is newer
lot but stressed that it is only a and nicer but I can't support it with See in Store for
double lot in that area and in other the opposition of an entire
areas of town would not meet the neighbourhood.”
size requirements to be considered The proposed bylaw was defeated Sale Prices.
a double lot. unanimously.
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front
continued from front THE WEEKLY ANCHOR MONDAY JULY 4, 2016 PAGE 2
continued from front
continued from front PAGE 2 MONDAY SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 THE WEEKLY ANCHOR
continued from front
Council declines request to reconsider advertising bench decision
continued from front
by Adrienne Tait believes is not true as he was not informed staff said the RFP changes the “whole gist” of the
was dissatisfied with the proposal. program and believed Alpine Exposure would
Troy Sorensen of Alpine Exposure came The second concern cited was that the have to come up with an entirely new bid in
before council as a delegation at the regular specifics of his proposal had been revealed to order to fulfill the updated requirements. “How
council meeting on September 20 and council at the previous meeting and made do we know we are being unfair with a whole
requested they reconsider their August 23 public. new process? Your proposal would not be the
decision to move to a request for proposal The third concern was the vote to move to a same as the one presented. There will be
process this fall for the advertising request for proposal process, “thereby asking changes.”
benches.Alpine Exposure's previous contract my competitors to submit bids that would beat Councillor Gomuwka said, “This has drawn
was for a five year term and expired in 2014. my proposal published minutes earlier,” said on too long. I believe we have been unfair.
Mayor Greg Pasychny declared a conflict of Sorensen. This is not the biggest issue we have faced but
interest and excused himself from the The fourth concern was that the town ordered it is one of the most contentious.”
presentation, debate, and vote and left council the benches to be removed by September 30 After much discussion and debate Council
chambers while the issue was addressed. until the RFP process was complete at an defeated Boyce's motion (to rescind the August
During his presentation Sorensen outlined a estimated expense to Sorensen of 23 decision and sign a one year contract with
number of concerns including that he had not approximately $10,000. Alpine Exposure until October of 2018 at which
been invited to attend the August 23 meeting Sorensen posed the question, “How can I time they would move to a request for proposal
and believed he was misrepresented at that possibly compete in an RFP process where my process).
time. competitors know the number of benches, the Councillors Gomuwka and Boyce voted in
Sorensen confirmed he met with town locations of my benches, and my specific dollar favour of the motion while Councillors Bevan,
administration on August 12 in accordance with bid?” Strang, and Chouinard voted against.
the directive set following his presentation on “I believe the RFP process has been The Request for Proposal process for
July 19. Sorensen said the meeting was not a irreparably tainted due to the town publishing advertisement benches on Town property will
negotiation but rather the town advised him of my bid,” said Sorensen. continue as planned.
their concerns with regards to the benches. Sorensen proposed he pay a permit fee and Since the meeting town administration has
At the conclusion of the August 12 meeting suggested the town move forward with the RFP contacted Mr. Sorensen and offered to allow
Sorensen agreed to draw up a first draft of his process in October 2018 which would then the benches to remain until the completion of
proposal, requested a list of benches that were allow him to submit a competitive proposal. the RFP process.
in need of repair, and understood, “we would CAO Mike Derricott admitted the town “mis- “We recognize there were parts of the process
go back and forth with revisions until an stepped” in the handling of the proposal when that did not happen as it should have and there
acceptable final draft was reached.” they brought it forward. “That was a first were issues that made the process more difficult
“The other misrepresentation that occurred draft,” Derricott said, “It was identical to the than it needed to be. We still believe an open and
was the implication that I 'dropped the ball,' contract. We have some real challenges with transparent RFP process is the right way to go,”
and that I 'waited so long to come before the benches that need to be addressed.” said CAO Mike Derricott, “The intention was
council,” said Sorensen, “I want to be very Councillor Jim Gomuwka verified that never to cause direct harm or discomfort for Mr.
clear that I wanted to negotiate the agreement Sorensen was still willing to participate in the Sorensen and I think it is important we to try to
years ago and was specifically told by Town RFP process to which Sorensen said he was, alleviate some of the pressure this has caused.”
staff to patiently wait. If anyone has 'dropped with an October 2018 start date. Gomuwka Sorensen said he does plan to submit a
the ball' it is the Town of Edson.” said, “Mr. Sorensen has given us an easy revised proposal.
Sorensen said he has done everything avenue to take to move forward.”
requested by the Town including waiting to Councillor Brian
renegotiate, added a red border to the benches Boyce spoke in favor
at his expense, removed benches for the Tour of of Sorensen's proposal
Alberta, repaired benches promptly when and said, “This has
contacted by the town, and drafted a new been mishandled going Sid's Safety
agreement within hours of being asked. back years. Mr.
Sorensen said he was not informed that the Sorensen has been put
draft was unacceptable and “staff did not make at a disadvantage by & Janitor al
any effort to negotiate a mutually acceptable his proposal coming
agreement like they were ordered to.” forward. The process
Sorensen addressed his concerns with the was tainted.” Boyce
outcome of the August 23 council meeting. criticized town 5928 - 3rd Avenue, Edson, Alberta T7E 1R8
“I would like to talk about the August 23 administration and Phone: (780) 723-6575 Fax: (780) 723-6567
meeting, of which I was not informed or invited staff saying he believed Email: sidssafety@telus.net
to and at which four important things “they did not even give
happened,” said Sorensen. lip service to the
The first concern was regarding the statement negotiations.” NOTLEY might want to leave
that negotiations had failed, which Sorensen Councillor Strang
you in the cold this winter,
Neighbourhood but here at Sid’s Safety
we have a full line of
gathers to Winter Wear to keep you warm.
defeat rezoning
continued from front
concerns regarding the quality of Mayor Greg Pasychny said, “I
his work. They also said they have always and will continue to
would be amenable to him building support infill. We have approved
single family residents in the other infill projects but we never
neighbourhood but were opposed to had the community come out like
a multi-family unit. this. These are not 50 foot lots. At
Councillor Boyce acknowledged some point we got caught in our
that the lot in question is a double own bylaws. Your project is newer
lot but stressed that it is only a and nicer but I can't support it with See in Store for
double lot in that area and in other the opposition of an entire
areas of town would not meet the neighbourhood.”
size requirements to be considered The proposed bylaw was defeated Sale Prices.
a double lot. unanimously.
