My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/22/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
11/22/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:27 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 2:50:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/22/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
BOOK W rAa 84 -4 <br />Jeff Barton, Clerk of the Circuit Court, agreed that there is <br />some miscommunication and misunderstanding about the equipment we <br />were getting with the Dolman system. He stressed that he did have <br />some questions on the options that were listed in the September <br />1993 letter, which included the robot, the extra 2 VCRs in each <br />courtroom and a hearing-impaired system. Then the October 1993 <br />letter showed that prices were escalating, and he assumed that the <br />amount of equipment was increasing also because prices usually go <br />down after negotiation, not up. He assumed that his requests to <br />General Services were being handled, and had not heard anything to <br />the contrary that he wouldn't be getting everything approved by the <br />Board on February 15, 1994. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Barton was provided a copy of <br />the September 6, 1993 letter from Dolman Technologies written to <br />Bruce Boyd outlining exactly what the County would be getting for <br />$52,895 or provided a copy of the later letter which also outlined <br />exactly what equipment we would be getting for $45,000. <br />Administrator Chandler interjected that the October 12 letter <br />indicates that there had been further negotiations and a <br />substantial price reduction. There was no mention of a reduction <br />in the number of cameras, etc., other than what was attached. <br />Commissioner Adams felt there is enough vagueness involved <br />with the typical Dolman system not to warrant a court action in <br />this matter. She suggested that we determine the difference in the <br />equipment and decide what to do about it. <br />Commissioner Bird felt it was an unfortunate situation, but we <br />need to be assured that what is there is worth $45,400 and that it <br />is what Mr. Barton feels is needed to do the job without additional <br />personnel. <br />Commissioner Macht asked if we have the budgetary capability <br />to pay for the additional equipment, and Administrator Chandler <br />advised that it would come out of the sales tax capital courthouse <br />budget. <br />OMB Director Joe Baird. confirmed that we currently are running <br />$257,000 -below target on the courthouse. <br />Mr. Barton advised that the cost would be $48,900 per <br />courtroom which includes the wide-angle lenses on an additional <br />camera that will solve a multitude of problems. The current system <br />does not allow attorneys to get up from the bench nor allow a <br />witness to come down out of the witness stand and be captured on <br />video. The current system requires an additional person to take <br />notes as to who is talking and where they are talking from. <br />NOVEMBER 229 1994 28 <br />M M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.