My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/19/1978 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1978
>
07/19/1978 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 1:27:17 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:29:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/19/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
View images
View plain text
<br /> ~ <br /> Assistant Manager said that if the City retained control of the consultant, <br /> it would review and make a recommendation to the Commission. The question <br />- before Council was whether or not it wanted that course of action to be <br /> taken and that decision should be declared now before the architectural <br /> firm started working. <br /> Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the prime architectural I <br /> firm be responsible for contracting with technical consultants, ! <br /> sUbject to ratification by the Civic Center Commission. <br /> i <br /> Mr. Williams spoke in favor of the motion, noting that would place the I <br /> legal responsiblity on the architectural firm. He did not feel that the <br /> Council should tell the architect which firm it would have to deal with, <br /> but rather the prime architect should make recommendations indicating its <br /> preference. <br /> Mr. Baumgartner said the AlA contract speaks directly to the liability <br /> remaining with the prime architect in the case where the architect would <br /> subcontract. He said the only concern would be not to cause a forced <br /> relationship, yet on the other hand to be able to reserve the right of <br /> veto. He would like there to be a position of checks and balances through <br /> a contract agreement and not necessarily through the selection process. I <br /> , <br /> I <br /> Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. , <br /> Council then moved to the second step: Architect selection process. <br /> Mr. Delay indicated preference for a modified version of staff's Alternate I <br />- B. He would like Council to be involved actively and be ultimately <br /> responsible for the selection. However. he wished the presentations to <br /> be made jointly, have the Civic Center Commission rank order, and then <br /> the Council make the final decision. I <br /> Assistant Manager noted the five-hour estimate for a joint presentation I <br /> was fairly conservative, and it probably would be eight hours of review. <br /> He noted a major concern from the staff's standpoint was that if Council . <br /> i <br /> were going to retain a major responsibility of the final design, then i <br /> t <br /> it would be imperative that the Council participate in the selection i <br /> interviews and decision. He suggested the presentations be made August 8 r <br /> or 15 with action by the Council the day immediately following. <br /> Mr. Bradley wondered if new RFPs were going to be submitted. Assistant ; <br /> Manager said he understood the Council IS decision was to limit review to <br /> the 27 firms and in that review their RFP's may require some updating. I <br /> However, he reviewed for Council the time frame involved in selecting the <br /> expert consultant to work with the screening committee, the review process <br /> the screening committee would have to go through in reducing the final <br /> proposals, and time for the architectural firms to prepare for their i <br /> presentations before Council and Commission. <br /> ~ <br /> , <br /> , <br />e : <br /> 7/19/78--13 <br /> 5'~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.