 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
GILMER COMMISSIONERS HOLD SPECIAL SESSION |
| (07/01/2006) |
| By Drew Moody For the Hur Herald drewmoody@verizon.net Gilmer County Commissioners held a special session Thursday at 4 p.m. to reveal bids received to replace the courthouse windows Year-end (fiscal year) bills were paid as well. Simonton Windows and Imperial Glass, both located in Parkersburg, submitted bids. Gilmer County received an 80/20 grant for new windows. Several of the existing windows in the building have permanent condensation between the panes of glass. Simonton placed two bids, one for a single color; the other two-tone. The company said it would replace 66 windows for either $29,133 or $33,540 respectively. Simonton's bid includes installation. and rebuilding window air conditioner portals. Commissioner's said due to the age of the building installing duct work and central air would be far too expensive. Imperial Glass' bid nearly twice as much for only 51 windows. Commissioners agreed to seek employee imput regarding the style of window, then meet with the company, verify bid and offer Simonton the contract. The county intends to replace old air conditioners at the same time the windows are done. Three as yet to be determined companies will be contacted to submit quotes to replace 14 air conditioning units. In other matters, Imperial Electric of Charleston submitted a bid of $44,235 for work at the Holt House in downtown Glenville. The Charleston company has done several jobs in the county. Bids will be finalized at next week's meeting scheduled for July 6 at 9 a.m. Commissioners briefly discussed the publication of 195 resideint's names announcing they had not paid their taxes, when in fact they had. Sheriff Mickey Metz told commissioners after the meeting the software company managing the database of names was notified those citizens had paid their taxes. He said the names were supposed to be removed prior to publication but were not. Commissioners were questioned regarding how much that mistake had cost the county - both in the initial publication, and the subsequent apology "box ad" that followed? No decision was made as to what recourse to take, if any, regarding the cost of that mistake.
|
|
|