My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/18/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
10/18/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:08 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:43:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/18/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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).
View images
View plain text
NEGOTIATIONS WILL BE MADE WITH ANOTHER FIRM. HE ASKED IF THE BOARD <br />WISHED TO SELECT MORE THAN ONE FIRM IN THE EVENT WE SHOULD NOT REACH <br />AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FIRST ONE SELECTED. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEETHE <br />BOARD PICK MORE THAN ONE, AND HE PERSONALLY FELT THE FIRST TWO INTER- <br />VIEWED GAVE THE BEST PRESENTATIONS, WHICH HE DID NOT FEEL WAS ANY <br />REFLECTION ON THE OTHER TWO. <br />.COMMISSIONER LOY ALSO FELT THE BOARD IS FORTUNATE IN THE FIRMS <br />THEY WERE ABLE TO INTERVIEW. SHE NOTED THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO <br />BE OF TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE AND FELT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD <br />MAKE A UNANIMOUS DECISION. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT HE WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THE <br />BOARD REJECT ANY OF THE FOUR, BUT DID FEEL THE BOARD SHOULD PICK OUT AT <br />LEAST TWO SO THAT THERE WILL BE ONE BACK-UP, IN THE EVENT THE FIRST <br />SELECTION DOES NOT WORK OUT, <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE BETWEEN <br />NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, AND IF IT WERE EITHER OF THOSE, HE WOULD <br />BE GLAD TO MAKE THE VOTE UNANIMOUS. <br />THE CHAIRMAN AGREED THAT THE TWO HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE CON- <br />SIDERED ARE THE FIRST TWO, <br />IT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS'THAT THE FIRST TWO WERE PREFERRED, <br />AND IT WAS AGREED TO HAVE A WRITTEN BALLOT. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE COUNTED THE WRITTEN BALLOTS AND ANNOUNCED <br />THAT THE FIRST CHOICE IS THE FIRM OF CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY; STOTTLER, <br />STAGG & ASSOCIATES BEING THE SECOND CHOICE. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />DEESON, THE BOARD, HAVING CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS TO EMPLOY A CONSULTING <br />ENGINEERING FIRM FOR THE HOSPITAL CONVERSION, UNANIMOUSLY SELECTED <br />THE FIRM OF CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATION ON A <br />PROPOSAL TO CARRY OUT THIS PROJECT; AND FURTHER AGREED THAT IF ADDITIONAL <br />$ NEGOTIATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THAT THEY WILL BE MADE WITH THE FIRMS OF <br />STOTTLER, STAGG & ASSOCIATES; SVERDRUP & PARCEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.; <br />AND BREIL - RHAME, POYNTER & HOUSER, IN THAT ORDER. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SIEBERT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY, THE CHAIRMAN, <br />.E <br />OCT 18 1978 <br />37 <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.