4/18/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

continuation of Article 8.1 on the next page where "other projects" is crossed out, and assumed these were lined out and words typed in the margin at the time the contract was signed. He did not understand the article, and asked if this means that we own the plans and we can do with them what we want and the architect cannot. Vice Chairman Lyons, however, felt it was like being given the sleeves out of your vest. The plans would be public documents and can be given to another county, but -they, in turn, would have to get them certified by an architect which would probably involve professional fees. He felt that it does clear the way for us to be able to give the plans away. He regretted that we could not have obtained the plans free from another municipality, but since they are not available, we must pay for the pioneering. Commissioner Bird brought up the possibility of working a deal where we would receive some kind of rebate if another county used the plans. Additional discussion followed re the ownership stipu- lation in the contract, and Vice Chairman Lyons pointed out that the architect has faith that we are going to get together and he is continuing at full steam to give us the. set of schematicsintime for a Jail Committee meeting on May 1, 1984, the day before the next Board meeting. He did not think it would hurt the progress of the project if the Board decided to wait until the ownership stipulation was straightened out by the County Attorney before approving the agreement. General Services Director Tommy Thomas suggested that the Board approve them subject to Attorney Brandenburg's final review and stamped approval. Commissioner Wodtke preferred to get some verification regarding Article 8 re ownership of the plans, and Director 54 pp+ APR 18 1984 PU01( 56"PAGE 7O x