Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Leonard commented it would cost $537,203.00 if Council chooses to accept <br />the original change order. Councilmember Leonard questioned if it would be beneficial to <br />build a new building. <br />Councilmembers Clausen and Engelken commented they arein favor of rebidding the entire <br />project and coming up with a better plan. <br />Councilmember Mosteit questioned if the project could be rebid. Assistant City Attorney <br />Clark Askins responded the City has a binding contract and can only rebid the change <br />orders. Mr. Barr commented the only change presented is for the electrical. <br />Councilmember Engelken asked Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins if the item could be <br />tabled and the Legal provide Council with alternatives. Mr. Askins responded yes. <br />Councilmember Zemanek questioned if Civil Concepts could be requested to provide the <br />cost of a new building. Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins responded yes,but the project <br />would have to go outfor rebid. <br />Councilmember Martin asked Parks and Recreation Director Stephen Barr if staff had a <br />recommendation.Mr.Barr responded staff has three recommendations: 1) rebid;2) accept <br />the original Change Order No. 1 and rebid the electrical component;and 3) accept the <br />original Change Order No. 1 as is. Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins advised the revised <br />Change Order would not allow compliance with the law which states you cannot have a <br />change order increase the dollar amount of a contract by more than 25%. <br />Councilmember Moser questioned if the Change Order could be rebid to anyone. Mr. Barr <br />responded the Change Order has to go to the contractor the bid was awarded to. Mr. Barr <br />also responded it can be rebid by taking acomponent out of the scope of work. Assistant <br />City Attorney Clark Askins advised additional scope of work can be bid,and it has to be <br />more than 25percentof the original contract price. <br />Councilmember Engelken moved to table the item, and asked the city attorney to provide <br />MOTION PASSED. <br />options.Councilmember Zemanekseconded. <br />Ayes: Mayor Rigby, Councilmembers Leonard, Engelken, Kaminski, <br />Zemanek, Clausen, Mosteit, Martin and Moser <br />Nays:None <br />Absent:None <br />(c) <br />Consider approval or other action regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 42, <br />“Miscellaneous Offenses,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Porte, by prohibiting <br />the discharge of firearms within the city limits –K. Adcox <br />Police Chief Ken Adcox presented a summary. <br />Ordinance2012-3430: <br />Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read the caption of <br />AN <br />ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE AMENDING CHAPTER 42, <br />“MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES”, ARTICLE II, “WEAPONS”, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF <br />THE CITY OF LA PORTE, BY RESTRICTING DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS WITHIN THE CITY <br />LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR DEFENSES; CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A <br />SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THIS <br />ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION <br />SHALL BE FINED IN A SUM NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR <br />PUBLICATION OF THE CAPTION HEREOF; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN <br />MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. <br />Page 3of 6 <br />August 27, 2012, City Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />