Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
things that were forgotten and overlooked, and we ended up <br />picking up the tab for them, while the architects got their share <br />of those additional costs. He pointed out that when we built <br />Sandridge Golf Club recently, we set a budget where we had to <br />build the facility within a certain amount of money, which is all <br />we had. That situation is similar to this library bond issue, <br />and the way we structured our agreement with the architect on the <br />project is that we agreed to pay him a percentage up to a certain <br />figure which was the maximum we felt we could afford to pay for <br />that golf course. If the golf course came in over that, he would <br />not get any more money because he had failed to perform and <br />design a golf course for a cost that we said we wanted it built <br />for. However, if we chose to pay any additional costs, we could, <br />but the Architect would not get any more money. Commissioner <br />Bird wished to see us try that approach on some of these new <br />buildings and see if we can nail some of these things down a bit <br />tighter and put the architects on notice right up front that we <br />want a building designed to come within a certain budget, and if <br />it does not, that is all they are going to get paid on. If it <br />doesn't come in on that budget, we may choose to pay the extra <br />when it comes down to it, but we are not going to pay the <br />architect extra because they caused us to pay extra. <br />Chairman Scurlock understood that Commissioner Bird wanted <br />to see a maximum fee of not to exceed, and Commissioner Bird <br />clarified that it is not to exceed maximum construction, not to <br />exceed 6.2% of $1,320,000. <br />Commissioner Eggert advised that it is actually $1,308,250 <br />plus furnishings and computers. <br />Administrator Balczun advised that Item 11.2.1 on Page 18 of <br />the contract under Basic Services has an error in it. It states <br />incorrectly that "$80,910 represents 6.2% of the estimated <br />construction cost of $1,305,000 for 17,400 S.F." It should read: <br />"$81,235, which represents 6.2% of estimated construction cost of <br />$1,310,250 for 17,470 S.F." The difference is for the 70 feet. <br />IAN 71988 <br />24 <br />BOOK 72 f'nE523 <br />