My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Demolition Documents (compiled notebook)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Demolition Documents (compiled notebook)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:11:05 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 1:43:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10319
Title
Demolition Documents (compiled notebook)
BLDG Date
8/28/1998
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Design - Planning
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
375
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mayor Would staff care to respond to that? Mr Russell. <br />Russell Excuse me. I think, there's a discussion in the report about reimbursement for the <br />consultant fees involved in preparing the current streetscape design. The alternative to <br />that the staffreport recommends is that a straight 6% fee for architectural services be <br />allowed for actual expenditures on streetscape. That puts it, tied into hard construction <br />costs rather than just out of preliminary design and that's typically what we do with other <br />projects for streetscape design. <br />Scott Okav, so if I mav cl ' then, the general conditions, contractor fee, contin eg ncv' <br />index to construction start and the consultant's fees would a11 be expressed as a <br />percenta~e of the base amount. And that would be mv 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 definition <br />of exactly where the money spent within these categories, canopies, bridges and so <br />on, and so we're flying a bit by the seat of our pants, but I think that it makes <br />sense to start from the premise that we'll do the kinds of things that we've done on <br />other projects and this is my effort to replicate that by saying that we'll take care <br />of the utilities and the streetscape stuff. You know, we'll go with the heavier duty <br />bricks on the 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 that <br />e~rtra roughly $500,000. So, we'd roll it back to the same kind of participation <br />and reimbursement that we would have for a private party doing the same kind of <br />project. And I think that's appropriate and fair use of our limited urban resources, <br />urban renewal monies, and will give the county a place to start in terms of coming <br />back to us with specific design proposal, that they can do exactly what they <br />proposed to do here. They would just have to pick up the half million dollars out <br />of their pocket instead of the city urban renewal funds footing that bill. So we're <br />not mandating that they do or don't do any particular thing, just that we wouldn't <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.