Laserfiche WebLink
would give the County credit for the $40,000. If the County <br />decides not to construct the jail right away, the firm would <br />keep the $40,000. <br />Lengthy discussion took place regarding this matter. <br />The Attorney then reviewed the following: Sections <br />1.7.9 and 1.7.14. He advised that 1.7.17 should be <br />eliminated in its entirety, and that Section 1.7.20 should <br />read ".....provided same are required by causes not solely <br />within control of the architect." Also, Section 5.1.1 <br />should be eliminated in its entirety as well as Section <br />10.4, the Attorney continued. <br />Commissioner Wodtke inquired about Article 9 regarding <br />Arbitration. <br />Attorney Brandenburg responded that by eliminating this <br />Article, the County would not be forced to go to <br />arbitration; it would have an option instead. <br />The Administrator discussed the funding, and pointed <br />out that funds could come from the Secondary Road Trust Fund <br />in the form of a loan. <br />The Chairman discussed the interest rate of 14% in <br />Section 14.6. <br />Mr. Pierce referred to "Additional_ Services of the <br />Architect" and explained that this particular clause was put <br />into the agreement to cover any unexpected or unusual <br />service that the County would want them to perform. <br />Lengthy discussion ensued. <br />Commissioner Fletcher referred to 15.8 regarding an <br />interim report developed by the Architects. <br />Mr. Pierce commented that once their interim report was <br />submitted, they would take input from the Board and <br />incorporate it into the final report. This would determine <br />what would have to be built first, he added. They can point <br />out what the needs are, but they cannot make those decisions <br />for the Board. Mr. Pierce requested that the date in <br />I <br />OCT 6 1982 <br />51 wE 522 <br />16 <br />