My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/10/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
6/10/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:02 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:31:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JUN <br />0 1986 <br />Box 6 <br />F G 656 <br />State. <br />He is concerned about the State asking for monies <br />back <br />rather than giving us more. However, the receipt of delinquent <br />taxes will give us additional income, and Director Baird felt it <br />was safe for us to go with the money we have right now, the $3.9 <br />million. <br />Director Baird advised that staff is presently developing a <br />information system where each project has a line item budget so <br />that we have a cost center to track, and every time there is a <br />change, we would notify the Board. In addition, there would be a <br />line item budget prior to going in and approving any contracts, <br />except for the architect and engineer, because they have to <br />design the project before we know what the costs are. He felt it <br />would be worth the money to have a feasibility study done on each <br />for $1,000-$2,000 a piece to get a total breakdown so that we can <br />track if from that point and see where we stand at all times. <br />Commissioner Bird believed it would be extremely helpful to <br />develop some ceiling figures on these major projects so that <br />right away we start working within those perimeters and instruct <br />the architects to stay within that limit. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed that we went out for our money <br />way too early, rather than having some kind of interim financing <br />and then coming back with some permanent financing. <br />Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that we don't want to pay 10% <br />to the architect and general contractor on bids for furnishings, <br />equipment, etc., such as we did on the 4th Courtroom, and <br />Director Baird stated that the architect gets a percentage on <br />just the Jail building itself. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that by diverting monies from the <br />Utilities enterprise funds to other general projects, such as <br />$250,000 for the Jail, these projects actually are being paid for <br />by the users of the utilities, not the general taxpayers. He did <br />not feel that was right. <br />Commissioner Lyons felt that we should find some way to <br />credit the Jail because that cost was based on oversizing the <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.