12/16/2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9:05 a.m. Held a Board of Equalization meeting 9:12 a.m. Returned to the regular meeting PUBLIC PARTICIPATION — Chairman McFarland called for public participation and no one responded. COUNTY ATTORNEY—no items 22. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PERSONNEL-- Lancaster made a motion and Ziola seconded to go into executive session regarding personnel. This executive session is to prevent needles harm or injury to an individual. Arnold, Lancaster, McFarland, Purdy, Quandt, Schuppan and Ziola all voted yes and none voted no. Motion carried. 9:14 a.m. executive session 9:50 a.m. Lancaster made a motion and Quandt seconded to go out of executive session. Chairman McFarland stated that there were no other subjects discussed no votes were taken and no action was taken. . Arnold, Lancaster, McFarland, Purdy, Quandt, Schuppan and Ziola all voted yes and none voted no. Motion carried. REQUEST TO RESERVE TIME — Doug Lanfear requested to address the HVAC for the courthouse. He stated he talked to some contractors and there are some concerns that the rafters may not hold the equipment and the equipment may vibrate and cause problems with the old plaster in the building. He also expressed concern about running the water up to the attic. He questioned if there may not be other systems that would be simpler to run like electric or Freon lines. A newer more modern system would be more efficient. It may be a good time to look at a different system. 5 A) DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BIDS, ADVERTISING & BID OPENING FOR COURTHOUSE HVAC PROJECT— Mr. Zitterkopf came forward regarding the questions on the advertising of the bid opening and if the county purchasing act covers a project like this. He stated that the project was well advertised in trade publications on a regional basis and interest was shown but that is not the issue. The purchasing act states that the county is to receive sealed bids by public notice in a legal newspaper. County Attorney Mark Young found a case that a HVAC project in a courthouse may not be subject to the county purchasing act because it would be considered a capital improvement and they assumed that was the end of the story. He quoted information from the case law from Phelps County but the statute was repealed in 1985 and some of it was confusing and unclear the new statute does not include the wording capital improvements. If the board votes to proceed with the project the board members could be liable and it would not be worth that risk as individuals. The county has not done a project of this size without advertising as per the county purchasing act. It is an inconvenience to not open the bids but they should be returned to the contractors and resubmitted after it is properly published in a legal newspaper. The facilities committee held a meeting and recommended to not accept the bids and return them to the contractors advertise and open bids in January. Quandt made a motion and Lancaster seconded to return the bids and reschedule the bid opening. 3