My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/16/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
2/16/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:52 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:42:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/16/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
Box 88 f!tF 853 <br />Commissioner Eggert noticed that some of the Utilities <br />contracts were approved several years ago and asked if we are still <br />happy with those firms. She was concerned because there may have <br />been personnel changes in some firms during that long period of <br />time. <br />County Administrator Jim Chandler responded that consultants <br />are prequalified and when we have a specific project, we go through <br />the interview process and the personnel factor is taken into <br />consideration. If there has been a change in the key personnel and <br />it is not satisfactory, that would be an important element. <br />Commissioner Tippin led discussion regarding a specific <br />contract to relocate the solid waste transfer station in Fellsmere. <br />He indicated that the contract called for a budget of $6,000 for <br />landscaping with a fee of up to $5,000 for a landscape architect to <br />design the landscaping. He thought that was out of line. He also <br />mentioned that the specifications called for Schedule 80 PVC pipe <br />when Schedule 40 is more than ample and he felt there was a $6,000 <br />error. He was even more concerned that an average layman seeing <br />this type of error would suspect the whole contract. Commissioner <br />Tippin hoped this was an isolated case. He asked who polices a <br />consultant's proposals. He does not have the expertise nor the <br />time to study engineering documents that come before the Board for <br />approval. He considered it his responsibility to pay close <br />attention to the details and get the best "bang for the buck" for <br />the County. <br />Director Pinto stated that one way of policing the contracts <br />is to compare them with similar projects. However, sometimes an <br />item in specifications is missed. He admitted that he did go over <br />the design that Commissioner Tippin referred to and did not look at <br />the irrigation specifications. He was looking at controls and <br />tanks. <br />Commissioner Eggert noted that we have had problems with <br />irrigation and landscaping costs in other projects. <br />Administrator Chandler assured the Board that staff reviews <br />specifications, but some details are beyond our expertise. <br />Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding personnel in the <br />consulting firms. He thought that the individual who will be <br />responsible for our contract should be named in the contract in <br />addition to the name of the firm so that when anything goes wrong <br />we know who has done the work. <br />Director Pinto assured the Board that staff does hold <br />consultants responsible for oversights. He gave an example of the <br />County's first water treatment plant where a mistake was made by <br />the engineer and the engineer paid for that mistake. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.