Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 61976 <br />INTO AN ARGUMENT EVERY TIME AN INVOICE IS SUBMITTED. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS ARE NOT <br />REIMBURSABLE AND STATE AUDITORS WOULD DEFINITELY NOT APPROVE OF THE <br />COUNTY TURNING OVER A BLANK CHECK FOR SERVICES NOT PERFORMED. <br />MR. LITTLE NEXT SUGGESTED THAT IF THE FINAL COST, AFTER THE <br />ACTUAL BIDS ARE MET AND THE LAST CHANGE ORDER IS MADE, SHOULD AMOUNT <br />TO LESS THAN $403,600, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD BE MADE. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DISCUSSED THE PROBLEM OF HOW TO HANDLE CHANGE <br />ORDERS AS THIS AMOUNT IS TO BE PAIL► OUT OF SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED HE FELT THERE MUST BE SOME CONTROL <br />BY THE COUNTY, <br />MR. LITTLE SAID IN THAT EVENT HE FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD GO TO <br />CONDEMNATION AND THE CITY WILL RELOCATE THE UTILITIES. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT FELT WE SHOULD <br />HAVE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. <br />MR. LITTLE SAID HE DID NOT FEEL WE CAN HAVE CHANGE ORDERS GOING <br />THROUGH TWO BODIES WHILE THE CONTRACTOR STANDS AROUND WITH IDLE CREWS. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED HE FELT THAT THE TWO ATTORNEYS <br />SHOULD GET TOGETHER AS SUGGESTED BEFORE TO FIGURE OUT A LEGAL WAY FOR THE <br />CITY TO GET THE MONEY TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE COUNTY TO BE LEGALLY <br />ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE LAND. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WANTED IN WRITING <br />OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS CAN <br />BE USED IN THIS MANNER, r <br />ATTORNEY CORDISCO SUGGESTED THAT THE STATE AUDITORS BE ASKED <br />FOR A PRECONTRACT RULING ON THIS MATTER AND THEN THAT RULING WOULD BE <br />AN EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE D.Q.T. ATTORNEYS <br />ARE CHECKING THIS WITH THE STATE THIS MORNING AND THE ADMINISTRATOR <br />IS RIGHT NOW TALKING TO THEM IN THIS REGARD, <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER THE WORDING IN THE COUNTY'S <br />RESOLUTION IN REGARD TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT WAS NECESSARY AND ALSO AS <br />TO WHETHER THE CITY ACTUALLY OWNED THE STRIP OF LAND IN QUESTION. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR A MOTION TO INSTRUCT <br />THE TWO ATTORNEYS TO WORK TOGETHER ON PREPARING -AN AGREEMENT, AND THE <br />BOARD DID NOT FEEL A MOTION WAS NECESSARY AS THEY FELT THIS HAD BEEN <br />33 <br />�oo27 33 <br />