Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Adams recommended that the funding be extended to include'the <br />architect's fees for Station #8. <br />Administrator Chandler suggested they might want to go ahead and include funding <br />for the engineering services and survey, et cetera, as well. He recommended they increase <br />the amount by $50,100 which would cover architectural fees, engineering services, surveys, <br />and so forth. <br />Commissioner Adams understood that they would increase the funding to $100,000 <br />to cover fees for both Station #8 and # 11 <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Macht, to increase the funding to $100,000 <br />from the 1 -cent sales tax revenue and approve the <br />architectural/engmeermg agreements with Edlund & Dritenbas <br />for existing Station #8 and new Station # 11. <br />Commissioner Ginn noticed that under Article 6 of the agreements the architect's <br />drawings cannot be used by the County for any other buildings. She understood this was a <br />standard contract, but expected the County would be building more stations in the future, and <br />thought the County should have something standard. It seemed to her the County should <br />have plans that they could use again. <br />Chairman Tippin agreed that Commissioner Ginn brought out a good point. <br />Commissioner Adams believed that paying this amount of money ought to afford <br />some ownership of the design. <br />Paul Dritenbas, architect with Edlund & Dritenbas, advised that historically a design <br />has remained the property of the architect; however, it is becoming a practice that <br />government and school boards are wanting the architect to transfer the rights of ownership <br />in order to keep costs down if they want to treat it as a prototype. In representing the firm, <br />he did not have a problem with amending the contract to allow reuse of the design by the <br />Emergency Services District, but pointed out that it would be subject to a "repeat fee" to be <br />negotiated. A "repeat fee" would be much less than the standard percentage for a new <br />building. The County would still be subject to all the site conditions in the site design that <br />occur with a new site. He estimated the current "repeat fees" are about 34%, or about half <br />October 20, 1998 <br />55 <br />BOOK 107 PAGE -354 <br />