Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> i <br />' S w <br /> d. of Sel Minutes <br /> Meeting of October 8, 1986 <br /> Committee had when the original contract was i fined? John <br /> Ferguson said that the first time he saw a contract agreement was <br /> tonight. They were not sent a copy. Another member of the <br /> committee said that the basic contract was the amount of children <br /> and the square footage and what the state would reimburse thea. <br /> The problem is for extra services and that is where the difference <br /> is in the contract . <br /> Dr . Nicholson aid that the Building Committee never talked ed i n <br /> teras of setting a fee. Sel . Hanson said that it was dickering <br /> going on between Town Council and the Council for Don H i a a. <br /> e l . Lawrence asked if the only discussions we r e those i t h Town <br /> Council and Don H i sa a and when it cane to the Selectmen for <br /> recommendations? The Executive Secretary said that the School <br /> Building Committee has no legal right to negotiate with the <br /> architect . The only body which can hire the architect or <br /> authorize the architect to proceed - in any way is the hoard of <br /> Selectmen . Town Council has been involved i n negotiations and the <br /> j <br /> Executive Secretary and School Superintendent were involved i n a <br /> session in trying to strike compromises. The original conflict <br /> came when the architect wanted to use a standard American <br /> Institute of Architect's contract that is not used in <br /> municipalities. Town Council wanted to use a standard municipal <br /> contract . The negotiations then narrowed down to a few items -- <br /> 1 . the construction cost estimating and 2. cost estimate . Both <br /> were resolved. Now there is another one . The Executive Secretary <br /> said that he finds the proposal of 1 .3 times 1 .8 to be reasonable . <br /> He said that he could not tell how much it will cost because you <br /> never know if the architect will have to go tach to do additional <br /> world commenting that there is no money to do the additional work. <br /> In theory, if additional work was needed, additional money would <br /> have to be sought . At that time , we would not be involved in <br /> negotiating additional scope of services for the contract. The <br /> Executive Secretary commented that in discussion with Mr . Hi al a <br /> and other people involved, hie 4inds the 1 .3 x 1 .8 to be reasonable <br /> which is option Ef <br /> e l . Hanson reviewed all the options at this point . It was noted <br /> that there was a discrepancy between town council 's computations <br /> of .34 and Hisaka's letter which states .35. The Executive <br /> Secretary suggested that the Board accept, the formula of Elan B. <br /> (any ork performed by Mr. Hisaka would cost h r# which is <br /> 1 .3 1 .8. Anyone else i n the organization performing the work <br /> would be based on the individual 's sal art' times 1 .3 1 .8o) <br /> e l ; Hanson rade reference to Article XV, The Executive e re t ar <br /> commented that it speaks to the value of the designerl's time peri t <br /> performing additional services at the rate of /her. and the <br /> actual rate paid to staff times 1 . , Council took the language i n <br /> that particular section , which was the origin of Option A. <br /> -13- <br />