My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/3/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
6/3/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:17 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:09:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/03/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
DISCUSSION RE CHANGE ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 4TH & 5TH COURTROOMS <br />AND VARIOUS OTHER ITEMS <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT APPEARS WE <br />HAVE TO USE THE SAME ARCHITECTS FOR DESIGN OF THE FIFTH COURTROOM IN <br />THE ANNEX, AND THIS WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE, <br />MR. KONTOULAS EXPLAINED THAT HE WROTE THE ADMINISTRATOR A <br />MEMO REGARDING FIVE ITEMS - THE FIRE ESCAPE WHICH WE HAVE TO DO; CHANGES <br />THE SHERIFF WANTS ADDING SOME PARTITIONS; THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S <br />REQUEST FOR TEARING DOWN A WALL; AND THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURTROOMS, <br />THE ARCHITECTS ARE WILLING TO PROCESS ALL OF THESE ITEMS AS A CHANGE <br />ORDER, AND EACH ITEM COULD BE TREATED INDIVIDUALLY; THEY WOULD, HOWEVER, <br />WANT A $15,000 FEE JUST FOR THE COURTROOM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION <br />DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE A SEPARATE THING ALTOGETHER. THE ARCHITECTS WOULD <br />WANT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE A LETTER AGREEING THAT WE WOULD PAY <br />THEM FOR THESE CHANGES AS CHANGE ORDERS, AND UNDER THEIR GENERAL <br />CONDITIONS, THEY CAN GET THIS FEE, HE NOTED THAT THEY WONT DO THIS <br />WORK UNLESS WE GIVE THEM A LETTER. <br />COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED WHY WE CANNOT FINISH OUR PRESENT <br />PROJECT, GET OUT OF BUSINESS WITH THESE PEOPLE, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND <br />HAVE OUR LOCAL PEOPLE DESIGN THE COURTROOM, ETC. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, THE POSSIBILITY <br />OF DOING THE WORK OURSELVES, THE COMPLETION DATES OF THE VARIOUS CON- <br />TRACTS, AND THE FACT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RID OURSELVES COMPLETELY OF <br />THE ARCHITECT AND HIS SERVICES.BEFORE WE COULD CONTRACT WITH ANYONE ELSE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT WE ARE NOT ON THE FRIENDLIEST <br />OF TERMS WITH THE ARCHITECT RIGHT NOW, BUT MIGHT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE. <br />HE TALKED ABOUT THE MOMENTUM OF THE PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT <br />WOULD BE A SAVING BY STOPPING AND THEN STARTING UP ALL OVER AGAIN. <br />ADMINISTRATOR NELSON DID NOT FEEL THIS WOULD ACCOMPLISH ANY <br />GREAT SAVINGS BECAUSE ARCHITECTS, LOCAL OR OTHERWISE, DO NOT WORK <br />CHEAPLY. HE NOTED WE ARE PAYING A CONSIDERABLE FEE TO A LOCAL ARCHI- <br />TECT FOR HIS WORK ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRE STATIONS, AND THEY ARE <br />ALREADY PRE -STRUCTURED. <br />M Sul 85 BooK 46 PA -"F655 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.