X hits on this document

Word document

06-29-10%20Board%20Meeting%20Transcript%20(C).doc - page 193 / 276

1051 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

193 / 276

June 29, 2010

THE PROJECT? WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE IN CASE THERE'S ANY COST OVERRUNS, AND THE AUTHORITY, WHO BASICALLY TIES IT IN, BECAUSE WE JUST KIND OF HEARD ABOUT L.A.D.O.T. AND HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL THAT IS, NOT THAT M.T.A. HAS READ A PRIMER ON THAT BOOK, BUT THAT IS MY QUESTION, WHO WOULD HAVE THE OVERSIGHT? WHO'S IN CHARGE OF IT?

SUP. ANTONOVICH: PUBLIC WORKS.

ARNOLD SACHS: PUBLIC WORKS. SO IT'S A COUNTY PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH M.T.A. IS CONTRIBUTING 600,000. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM IS 1-D, AND I HELD 1-D FOR TWO REASONS. A, THE CHANGE ORDERS NOT TO EXCEED $274,000, AND BECAUSE I COMPARED THAT TO ITEMS 1-H, 2-H, 3-H, AND 4-H, AND THEY ALSO HAVE CHANGE ORDER CAVEATS. 1-H IS NOT TO EXCEED 75,000, 2-H NOT TO EXCEED 56,000, 3-H NOT TO EXCEED 36,000 AND 4-H IS NOT TO EXCEED 41,000, SO I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THE BENCHMARKS FOR THESE CHANGE ORDERS, AND CONSIDERING THIS IS THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF LENNOX WHERE I DON'T WANT TO SAY IS UNDERREPRESENTED, BUT MAYBE NOT BE AS POLITICALLY EDUCATED AS THE OTHER AREAS. HOW ARE THESE BENCHMARKS CONSIDERED? I DO RECALL THAT MANHATTAN BEACH, WHEN THEY HAD A BOND ISSUE, THE CHANGE ORDERS ATE UP $15 MILLION, AND THAT TRANSLATED INTO ANOTHER BUILDING THAT WASN'T BUILT. SO BASICALLY THAT WAS MY QUESTION, HOW THE BENCHMARK FOR THESE PROJECTS IS CONSIDERED REGARDING THE CHANGE ORDERS. 1-P. THERE

4

Document info
Document views1051
Page views1051
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 21:03:12 UTC 2016
Pages276
Paragraphs1618
Words59423

Comments