4/21/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 16 APR 21 198Z Attorney Brandenburg stated that if the Board wanted to negotiate with the architect, it could be done but would be more expensive as the surety company would then have to be involved. The Attorney felt the idea was to keep the expenses of the project as low as possible. Commissioner Fletcher questioned Articles 1.5.10, 1.5.11, and 1.5.16. He discussed "additional services" and change orders. The Attorney noted that the Board would have to pay if additional work was necessary. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he was very sensitive about the courthouse situation as he had not completely understood the architect and the owner's responsibility. HV then -discussed the following Articles: 1.7, 1.7.5, 1.7.9, 1.7.10, and 1.7.12. Lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Lyons reviewed his Motion which was to approve, in concept, the acceptance of Mr. Block as architect; to ask the Attorney to make the necessary revisions; specify the basic services as to what the County and the judges want; and to coma back to the Board for approval. The Attorney wants to be specific as to the scope of work, he added. Commissioner Fletcher then discussed Article 3.2.2. Commissioner Wodtke stated that we have an existing building and the job should be simple to build an adequate courtroom. He felt we were making a tremendous project out of a shell of a building, but affirmed that a set of plans was needed. Commissioner Bird reiterated that we want to make it clear to Mr. Block that there is a budget figure adhered to the agreement.