Laserfiche WebLink
~, completed work. Maybe I need clarification from staff, but I thought there <br />was general agreement that we were not going to pay for the work they've <br />already done. <br />Mayor Would staff care to respond to that? Mr Russell. <br />Russell Excuse me. I think, there's a discussion in the report about <br />reimbursement for the consultant fees involved in preparing the current <br />streetscape design. The alternative to that the staff report recommends is that a <br />straight 6% fee for architectural services be allowed for actual expenditures on <br />streetscape. That puts it, tied into hard construction costs rather than just out of <br />preliminary design and that's typically what we do with other projects for <br />streetscape design. <br />Scott Okav so if I mav clarif +~then the qeneral conditions contractor fee, <br />contin enc index to construction start and the consultant's fees would <br />all be expressed as a percentaae of the base amount. And that would be <br />mY,motion. <br />Mayor Okay. Further discussion on the motion. <br />Scott If I may just comment about it. We've not been able to get a real good <br />definition of exactly where the money spent within these categories, <br />canopies, bridges and so on, and so we're flying a bit by the seat of our <br />pants, but I think that it makes sense to start from the premise that we'll <br />do the kinds of things that we've done on other projects and this is my <br />effort to replicate that by saying that we'll take care of the utilities and the <br />streetscape stuff. You know, we'll go with the heavier duty bricks on the <br />paving, we would release the county from the perpetual maintenance <br />piece of it in recognition of the fact that we're not going to come up with <br />that extra roughly $500,000. So, we'd roll it back to the same kind of <br />~ <br />participation and reimbursement that we would have for a private party <br />