Minutes - 19761116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commissioner Pinney called for the quest., and the Chairman called fox the vote. All members of the Board voted aye and the motion was declared passed. Chairman Garrett referred to the request previously made by Mayor Cates to schedule a public meeting to discuss moving the museum from the ~1d Gourthouse. The Board scheduled Wednesday, December 8, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. for this meeting to be in the Commissioners' Room of the Gourthouse. The Clerk was instructed to notify all the writers of the letters concerning the moving of the museum and inform them of the scheduled meeting. Mrs. Garrett referred to Item 11-8: A standard form contract for Architectural and Engineering Services at the Old Grady Brown School and Orange County Jail with Joseph Massif. The Chairman stated that she had received a telephone call from a local architectural firm in the County sho had stated that they were under the impression that an opportunity would be extended to other architectural firms to make a proposal for the design of the Grady Brown and Jail. Discussion ensued between members of the Board as to their recollec- tion of what was said during the time that the different architects were being considered. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he felt it was wise to continue "with the special relationship with someone who has already been through the study and knows the Gounty in relationship to the study." Commis- sioner Gustaveson moved that the Board continue with that same special relationship with Mr. Massif to perform the architectural and engineering services at the Old Grady Brown School and Orange County Jail. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whitted. Robert Anderson of City Planning and Axchitectual Associates spoke to the Board. He stated that from the newspaper, he had read that the Board was about to approve a Contract for Architectual and Engineering Services. He stated, "it took me back to my interview with you all, and 2 have dis- cussed this with other architects that were also interviewed and my re- collection was that we were being interviewed for a specific study and that there would be no commitment to anyone beyond that point. If you remember, you were handed a paper which showed our proposal. Tt listed the firms and their proposals and the amount they proposed to charge. When we were not selected, I inquired with your Chairman and asked to be informed as to the compelling factors for the selection since that paper indicated that our fees were lower than the firm selected. I got a letter from the Chairman which quilted to me the Resolution, but indicated that the discussion of the Commissioners, the factors that were pointed out, were relative to the architectual fee of the Grady Brown School, as well as the consultant's fee for the total study." He stated that the Chairman indicated after a meeting that Mr. Anderson should not be concerned that there would be an opportunity for the architect to make proposals later on. He stated that it had been indicated to him that the contract fee for the architectural work was lowered by the firm selected than what was shown on the paper. Mr. Andrewson stated that his firm was disappointed and had hoped that since this was a local job and everyone was interested in it, that possibly the job could be divided between competent architects in order that others might have an opportunity to contribute. Commissioner Walker stated that he felt it was the understanding, at that time, that the Board would invite other architects back in when the Board was ready to proceed with the facility study. He stated further that he felt the Board should invite architects. in, hear them, and "take low bid, like we always do." Aiscussion ensued. Commissioner Walker asked Commissioner Gustaveson to table his motion until such time as the Board could evaluate other pro- posals of other architects.