My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-1993 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
07-26-1993 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2019 12:50:21 PM
Creation date
4/29/2019 12:50:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD JULY 26, 1993 <br />( #23) COUNTY ROAD 6 UPGRADE <br />No action taken. <br />( #24) SALE OF SEWER PLANT PROPERTY <br />Moorse reported the 4+ acre parcel was advertised and two bids were <br />received. One bid was received prior to the deadline, and one bid <br />was received 4 minutes after the deadline. The first bidder has <br />expressed objection to acceptance of the second bid. <br />Hurr asked if they are not bound by the published time. <br />Staunton stated legally the City was not bound to follow the <br />bidding process, and had established its own terms. He noted the <br />terms would have to be followed if it were deemed that one party <br />had a substantial advantage due to the extension of those terms. He <br />stated in this case, both parties had the same opportunities. He <br />added there may be some concern that the initial bidder may have <br />bid differently had he known there was another bidder. He reminded • <br />them that they can reject any and all bids, but that the bidding <br />process does not offer them an opportunity to negotiate the price <br />once the bids have been opened. <br />Goetten stated their responsibility is to get the best bid for the <br />City. She felt they should open both bids and reject if necessary. <br />Bob Abdo, representative of the bidder, stated the terms were <br />published. He stated his client had called and was told by staff <br />that if the bid were late, it would be rejected. The day of the <br />bidding the time clock was checked and the bidding process was <br />closed prior to delivery of the second bid. <br />Kelley expressed concern that they expedited the process too <br />quickly not allowing enough time to adjacent property owners to <br />determine if they wished to purchase. <br />Abdo stated his client understood the rules of the game, but would <br />be willing to negotiate after the opening if necessary. <br />Jabbour asked if the appraisal was made public. <br />Moorse stated only the appraised value was public. <br />Jabbour indicated he has lost many bids due to being late. <br />Hurr felt they were bound by the process they established. • <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.