My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/21/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
2/21/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:00:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/21/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
MR. KONTOULAS NOTED THAT THESE REFER TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, <br />AND EXPLAINED THAT AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION, AIR CONDITIONING CON— <br />TRACTORS, PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, ETC., MARK ON THE PLANS EXACTLY WHERE <br />THEY HAVE INSTALLED THE VARIOUS LINES, PIPES, WIRES, ETC., AND'THIS MAY <br />DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THESE <br />STRUCTURES WERE DONE BY DIFFERENT ARCHITECTS AT DIFFERENT PERIODS OF <br />TIME, AND OUR ARCHITECT WILL HAVE TO INCORPORATE ALL THESE PLANS INTO A • <br />FINAL PLAN AND COME UP WITH A COMPLETE REPRODUCIBLE SET OF PRINTS AND <br />SPECIFICATIONS. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT THEN QUESTIONED ARTICLE 3.2.2 WHICH HE <br />FELT SAYS THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY CONSTRUCTION COST AS IT RELATES TO A <br />PROJECT BUDGET UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN WRITING. HE ANTICIPATED j <br />WE WILL GIVE THEM A FIXED BUDGET OF SOME KIND, AND THIS SEEMS TO SAY THEY <br />ARE NOT BOUND BY IT UNLESS THEY AGREE TO IT IN WRITING. <br />MR. NELSON FELT THEY NEED THIS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES, BECAUSE' <br />HE DIDNIT SEE HOW THEY CAN GUARANTY THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE BUILDING. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT AGREED THAT IF THEY SIGN THIS CONTRACT <br />AND THE BIDS COME IN WAY ABOVE THAT, THEY ARE THE LOSER, <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE INQUIRED WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T LIKE THIS <br />CONTRACT, AND MR. NELSON POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 10.1 ALLOWS FOR TERMINA— <br />TION OF AGREEMENT. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON WHAT FEES WOULD BE OWED IF THE CONTRACT <br />WERE ABANDONED AFTER THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS <br />FELT THEY WOULD HAVE EARNED THE 20% SCHEMATIC PHASE PLUS 20% OF THAT <br />AMOUNT. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY TALKED ABOUT THE MULTIPLE OF 2.87 SET OUT <br />ON PAGE IO, ARTICLE 14.4.1 AND COMMENTED THAT WE ONLY PAID 1.87 FOR <br />EXTRA SERVICES IN THE. ORIGINAL CONTRACT. SHE NOTED THAT 1.1 MULTIPLE <br />FOR OUT—OF—POCKET EXPENSES IS THE SAME. <br />ADMINISTRATOR dELSON FELT THE 2.87 FIGURE COULD BE CHANGED TO <br />1.87. <br />MR. NELSON EXPLAINED THAT SECTION 14.5, IN REGARD TO REIMBURS— <br />ABLE EXPENSES, WAS DELETED BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO THE NORMAL SERVICE THEY <br />GIVE US. <br />57 <br />9 PAGE 1,38 <br />FEB 2 11979 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.