7/1/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED A MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT COULD BE SET UP IN THE UNINCORPORATED ENCLAVE IN ORDER TO COLLECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COM- MISSIONER BIRD, APPROVING ALTERNATIVE No. 2, WITH FUNDS TEMPORARILY COMING FROM FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING, AND THAT A STUDY BE CONTINUED TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS ELSEWHERE. ENGINEER ROBBINS WANTED CLARIFICATION TO PROCEED WITH MAKING THE ENGINEERING MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO INCORPORATE THIS WORK. THE BOARD AGREED, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 3 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE BEING ABSENT, AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. ARBITRATION WITH CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE METHOD OF MEETING WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND ARCHITECT, FROM THE COUNTY'S STANDPOINT, IS MUCH BETTER THAN TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES WITH ONE PARTY AND THEN WITH THE OTHER PARTY. HE REITERATED THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD SEEK A DECLARATORY DECREE TO BRING THE THREE PARTIES TOGETHER WITH THE SAME FORM - THERE COULD BE A SERIES OF ARBITRATIONS AS THE ISSUES COME TO LIGHT AND IT WILL INCUR SUBSTANTIAL AND UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE COUNTY AND IT COULD BE AVOIDED. THE BOARD DISCUSSED THIS MATTER BRIEFLY.` LYNN SNODGRASS, OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION, COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD REVIEW THE MATTER WITH HIS EMPLOYER, BUT THAT THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN A POSITION YET. HE ADDED THAT HE FELT THE MATTER WOULD BE DISCOURAGED AND COMMENTED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD PROCEED WITH WHATEVER ACTION IT HAS IN MIND. MR. SNODGRASS STATED THEY REALLY DID NOT FIND THE ARBITRATION PROCESS WOULD SERVE THEIR PURPOSES AT ALL, BUT WOULD LET THE BOARD KNOW IMMEDIATELY IF THEY DO CHANGE THEIR POSITION. ATTORNEY COLLINS ENCOURAGED MR. SNODGRASS TO AT LEAST TRY THIS PROCESS. mo% q PAGE 779 JUL 1 1991 47