6/3/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUS 31 11oo6 n 656 DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON THE BOARDS RELUCTANCE TO EXPAND AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARCHITECT WITH WHOM WE ALREADY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THE MAJOR ARGUMENT FOR CON- TINUING WITH THE SAME ARCHITECT IS CONVENIENCE BECAUSE WE COULD NOT EVEN START ON THE COURTROOM PROJECT UNTIL ALL OTHER RENOVATIONS WERE TOTALLY COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK IN AND START UP AGAIN. MR. KONTOULAS AGREED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADVERTISE AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THIS HAS TO BE PLANNED OUT, AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING IN THE ANNEX MUST BE CONSIDERED. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STILL WONDERED IF WE COULD SAVE MONEY BY DOING THIS OURSELVES, AND MR..KONTOULAS DID NOT BELIEVE WE COULD. HE NOTED THE SHERIFFS CHANGES ARE VERY MINOR. ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT ATTORNEY STEWART HAS ACCUMULATED A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMA- TION ABOUT HOW THE ADDITIONAL COURTROOM SHOULD BE DESIGNED. MR. KONTOULAS RECOMMENDED THAT IN ALL THE ITEMS, EXCEPT THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURTROOMS, WE GO AHEAD AND GET THE CHANGE PROPOSAL PRICED OUT TO SEE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH COURT- ROOMS, WHICH IS A LOT OF WORK ON THE ARCHITECT S PART, WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL FEE, BUT THE REST WE COULD GO AHEAD AND TREAT AS A REGULAR CHANGE ORDER'. m,i THE BOARD AGREED WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION. THE FOLLOWING CHANGE ORDERS SIGNED BY ADMINISTRATOR NELSON PER COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION OF AUGUST 11, 1979, ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: N0. 33 No. 34 No. 36 :•