Laserfiche WebLink
IN 1978, IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT THE COUNTY ALSO MAKE INSPECTIONS. <br />JAR. ROBBINS EXPLAINED THAT AN INSPECTION IS REQUIRED YEARLY, <br />AND WHEN THE COUNTY SUBMITS THEIR REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDS, IT MUST <br />HAVE A TYPE Z FORMAT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE INSPECTION REPORT. HE NOTED <br />THAT IF A BRIDGE HAS A CERTAIN RATING, AN UPDATED INSPECTION MAY BE <br />MADE ONLY EVERY TWO YEARS; THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE DETERMINES THE <br />FREQUENCY OF THE INSPECTION. HE THEN DISPLAYED A LIST OF BRIDGES FOR <br />WHICH THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS COMMENTED THAT WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO <br />MOVE ALONG WITH THE OVERALL INSPECTION OF ALL THE -BRIDGES. <br />DISCUSSION CONTINUED REGARDING THE COST OF THE COMPREHENSIVE <br />INSPECTIONS FOR ALL THE BRIDGES. <br />RALPH ENG OF THE .JOINT VENTURE EXPLAINED THAT THEY WILL BE <br />SPENDING QUITE A BIT OF -TIME ON THE BRIDGES THAT ARE THE COUNTY'S RESPONSI- <br />BILITY. HE CONTINUED THAT SOME OF THE BRIDGES WHICH ARE ZO' OR LESS <br />WILL NOT REQUIRE A COMPREHENSIVE INSPECTION. THEY WILL JUST BE IDENTIFIED <br />AND GIVEN A SHORT REPORT. PSR. ENG STATED THAT THEY EXPECT TO PLUS OR <br />MINUS $10,000 OR $15,000 FOR THE INSPECTION, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY MAY <br />FIND. <br />SIR. ROBBINS THEN DISPLAYED A COPY OF THE STRUCTURE INVENTORY <br />AND APPRAISAL REPORT WHICH WILL STATE THE -NET COST OF IMPROVEMENTS, AND <br />PtNCH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL USE FOR THEIR AUDIT. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHY THE .JOINT VENTURE'S PAYMENT <br />SCHEDULE WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY WE HAVE WORKED WITH THEM IN THE PAST. <br />SIR. ENG COMMENTED THAT THEY ARE WILLING.TO DO THIS ON A LUMP <br />SUM BASIS, BUT IF THE COUNTY DESIRES, THEY WOULD DO THIS ON A COST PLUS <br />FACTOR, NOT TO EXCEED THESE FIGURES. <br />PAIR. BEINDORF FELT IT WOULD BE WISE FOR THE BOARD TO.DO IT ON A <br />TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS, BUT STATED THAT THE .JOINT VENTURE WOULD BE <br />HAPPY TO DQ IT EITHER WAY, THOUGH THEY WOULD WANT A MAXIMUM FIGURE SET. <br />DISCUSSION WAS HELD ABOUT THE LAST SENTENCE OF SECTION 5A IN <br />THE PROPOSED CONTRACT, UNDER THE HEADING "OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS," AND <br />.ENGINEER BEINDORF EXPLAINED THAT IF THE COUNTY USES THESE DOCUMENTS AS <br />A -SAMPLE TO ANOTHER ENGINEERING FIRM, THEY PREFER TO HAVE THEIR NAME <br />REMOVED. <br />ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />31 <br />JUN 2 01979 41 p"I'la 31 <br />