3/19/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 191980 - goox 41 -FACE 48 0 THE ATTORNEY FELT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO CROSS-CHECK THE CHARGES!: MR. BOCHIARDY REITERATED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. AND WILL GIVE IT TO THE BOARD. THE ATTORNEY FELT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE NEEDED REGARDING THE 70130 SPLIT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER DISCUSSED THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE UNDERSTANDING THE COMMITTEE HAD WAS THE $115,000 WAS A BENCHMARK, AND IF THERE WERE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES, REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO ASK FOR THAT SUPPLEMENT. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF THEY COULD ACCEPT THE PHRASE "NOT TO EXCEED" ON SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ##2 INSTEAD OF "APPROXIMATELY $115,000" AND THEY AGREED. COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT WAS THE INTENT. PSR. BOCHIARDY THOUGHT THE $95,000 FOR THE FINAL REPORT WAS JUST AN ESTIMATE AND THIS FIGURE COULD NOT BE NAILED DOWN; IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY FIND IN PHASE 1. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT THEY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY REASON WHY WE CAN `T PUT ALL OF THESE THINGS ON ONE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER EXPLAINED THAT IN ORDER TO DO CONTOURS IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE MUST BE SOME GROUND WORK; AND THIS REQUIRES SOME -BA -SE LOCATION POINTS, WHICH IS NOT DONE NORMALLY IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. HE CONTINUED THAT IN RELATION TO WHAT WE ARE GETTING HERE IS AN ACTUAL MAP BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE OVERLAY CONTOURS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PAYING FOR. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT IT WAS TOO BAD WE DIDNIT KNOW ABOUT THIS WHEN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DID HIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, AND UNFORTUNATELY, ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE HAD ON RECORD WERE NOT SUFFICIENT. DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THIS SUBJECT.