Laserfiche WebLink
OCT z 2 1980 <br />�o 4a pAcE -64 <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED IF ANY OF THE APPROVED CHANGES WILL <br />HOLD UP CONSTRUCTION ON THE COURTHOUSE, AND MR. KONTOULAS REPORTED <br />THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN REQUESTED FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME SO FAR. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS AND CHAIRMAN SIEBERT TALKED ABOUT DELAYS <br />AND THE COST OF KEEP PERSONNEL IN RENTAL OFFICES. COMMISSIONER LYONS <br />SUGGESTED THAT IF MR. KONTOULAS HAS A CRITICAL CHANGE ORDER READY, <br />THE BOARD SHOULD CALL A SPECIAL MEETING SO WE DONT HOLD UP THE <br />ARCHITECT. <br />MR. KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ANY CHANGE ORDER <br />PRESENTED HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE'ARCHITECT AND CONTRACTOR AND <br />POSSIBLY CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES. IF ANY OF THESE CHANGES HAVE CAUSED <br />ADDITIONAL TIME, THE CONTRACTOR WILL ASK FOR IT AT THE COMPLETION <br />OF THE JOB. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DETERMINATION OF ANY POSSIBLE TIME <br />EXTENSION RIGHT NOW AND DON T WANT TO GIVE THEM AN OPEN OPTION ON <br />EXTENSION. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS REPORTED THAT AT THE <br />NEXT MEETING HE WILL HAVE A COMPLETELY UP TO DATE FINANCIAL REPORT <br />ON THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. <br />CHANGE ORDER #IO ON THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WAS <br />NEXT REVIEWED. MR. KONTOULAS FELT THESE CHANGES ON THE SECOND FLOOR <br />WERE DUE TO LACK OF INVESTIGATION DURING THE FIRST STAGE BECAUSE <br />THESE MATTERS WERE BROUGHT TO THE ARCHITECT `S ATTENTION BUT WERE <br />NEVER FULLY INVESTIGATED. HE RECOMMENDED THAT CHANGE ORDER #.{10 BE <br />APPROVED. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMIS- <br />SIONER WODTKE, TO APPROVE ALL SIX ITEMS ON CHANGE ORDER #10 RE THE <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,789.47. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE STATEMENT ON ITEM 0 <br />THAT IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH ELECTRIC COMPANY <br />WOULD DO THE WORK, AND MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT SOMEHOW THE ARCHI- <br />TECT'S MISTAKENLY HAD THE CONCEPTION THAT THE CITY WOULD DO THIS <br />WORK AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS NOT INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF BIDDING. <br />ITEM 2, WHICH IS IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT ON THE SECOND FLOOR ALSO <br />WAS NOT IN THE PLANS AT THE TIME OF BIDDING. ITEM 3 IS A DRY GOODS <br />STORAGE ROOM, WHICH WAS REQUESTED FOR APPLIANCE STORAGE IN THE <br />EMPLOYEES LOUNGE. ITEM 4 ARE ITEMS IN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S <br />