Minutes - Council - 08/14/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

construction of the wellhouse has been obtained and staff has written a letter to the low bidder to ask if they are still willing to perform the work under the bid submitted last year. Infinity Builders responded that they would complete the project for an additional $42,000, which amounts to an 8.5 percent increase in the project price. Since the bids between the low and second low bidder were so competitive (-$7,000) staff recommended rejecting all bids and readvertising the project. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if that would incur any liability. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the City had not entered into a contract with Infinity Builders. City Engineer Olson noted that Infinity Builders does feel the City has an obligation to them because they did award the contract. It is possible that they might ask to be reimbursed for the cost of the performance bond they incurred. City Attorney Goodrich stated that the City has more liability with the bids they rejected if they continue with Infinity Builders. He stated that the City's best legal option is to reject all bids. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to reject all bids for Wellhouse No. 3 Improvement Project #00-29 and authorize staff to re-bid the project. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Anderson, Hendriksen, and Kurak. Voting No: None. Councilmember Zimmerman requested that in the future staff makes certain that they do have title to property before doing any projects or bidding projects. Case #3: Introduce Proposed Ordinance to Amend Regulations Relating to the Keeping of Animals Community Development Director Frolik stated that on June 12, 2001, the City Council referred the proposed ordinances back to the Horse Care Board for further consideration. The Council expressed concern with eliminating the reference to 'enclosed roaming area' and increasing the acreage requirement for additional horses on a parcel from one-half to one full acre. The response of the Horse Care Board is that the current ordinance does not require the additional acreage to be 'enclosed roaming area'; therefore} nothing was eliminated and there is nothing to put back into the ordinance. If increasing the requirement for additional horses from one-half acre to one presents a problem for a property owner, they can apply for a conditional use permit. On June 12, 2001, the Council also stated that the formula for keeping farm animals and horses should be linear. The response of the Horse Care Board is that they intended to require more acreage for a mixture of farm animals versus only equines because the property would have to be able to accommodate a variety of housing, fencing, and segregation needs. City Council/August 14, 2001 Page 8 of 13