My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/9/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
2/9/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:36:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:05:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/09/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
H. Farmer's Home Administration Request for Additional Services <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/1/88: <br />TO: Members of the Board <br />of County Commissioners <br />DATE: February 1, 1988 <br />SUBJECT: FARMER'S HOME ADMINISTRATION <br />REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES <br />THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird <br />OMB Director <br />FROM: Leila Miller <br />Budget Analyst <br />DESCIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />Per the Board's request, please find attached Partial Pay <br />Estimate # 40. This request is for payment of additional services <br />performed by Masteller and Moler on the Gifford Project. It <br />includes special engineering services as provided by Section D of <br />the Engineering Contract dated November 13, 1985. In this <br />instance the special services are 'for additional land surveying <br />services rendered on contract # 3, easement surrey of Hawk's Nest <br />Golf Course.' These additional services will bring total payment <br />on this contact to $119,622.19. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />This contract was approved by the Board for up to $150,000. <br />Given this, staff recommends approval of the payment for $1,280 <br />for additional services. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained that he asked for this to be <br />removed for discussion because it wasn't his intention that <br />everyone of these items were to continue to come back to the <br />Board for approval. Originally, $100,000 was budgeted, but <br />$28,000 was taken out of that to pay the costs of the Bent Pines <br />lawsuit. He believed the intent was that the $400 or $500 items <br />were not to come back to the Board for approval until after they <br />exceeded the $100,000. <br />Commissioner Eggert understood from the information given <br />the Board during the meeting of January 26th, that the costs had <br />made their way up to $118,000, which left only $10,000 in the <br />original $100,000 budget. <br />Chairman Scurlock interjected that when the original budget <br />was set, it did not anticipate the Bent Pines lawsuit and the <br />FEB 9 1988 BOOK 70 of,E 802 <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.