My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/6/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
3/6/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:51:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/06/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
Boa 482 <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Scurlock, that the Board approve Change <br />Order No. 1, as recommended*by staff. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bird questioned why these <br />elevations weren't determined at the time the project started <br />since the land hasn't settled and has been the same for the last <br />100 years, and Administrator Chandler confirmed that we have had a <br />problem on this particular design and we will have to address this <br />with the engineering firm either on this contract or on subsequent <br />work. <br />Chairman Eggert asked if there was a way to deal with them on <br />current work, and Administrator Chandler advised that we still <br />have retainage on their fee. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that since this particular engineering <br />firm is kind of a new entity, they would be quite anxious to <br />please the County with their work so they could continue to do <br />more work for us. <br />Commissioner Scurlock didn't feel there should be any <br />additional costs for engineering services, but Public Works <br />Director Jim Davis explained that there are no engineering fees <br />associated with this change order. This was an item that was. <br />included in the design drawings, but somehow by the time it went <br />out to bid, it wasn't in the drawings. There was a series of <br />drawings, and some of the problem had to do with the changing of <br />the ownership of the engineering firm. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />50 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.