My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/16/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
10/16/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:15:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/16/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
rp- <br />0 CT 16 1979 ' <br />Rcl OF 41. ea,E 743 <br />ON LOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />Loy, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO GO ON RECORD AS FINDING ONE <br />OR MORE OF THE METHODS OF FINANCING THE SOUTH COUNTY TAXING DIS- <br />TRICT WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 1, AS OUTLINED IN THE LETTER <br />OF AUGUST 14, 1979, FROM RALPH ENG, FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE AND <br />AUTHORIZED MR. ENG TO CONTACT THE FMHA AND BEGIN PROCESSING OF THE <br />APPROPRIATE GRANT APPLICATION. <br />MR. ENG STATED THAT WE NOW NEED TO DISCUSS THE TREATMENT <br />PROCESS -AND THE AQUIFER FROM WHICH THE WATER CAN BE DRAWN. HE NOTED <br />THAT THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED IN DETAIL THE ADVANTAGES AND <br />DISADVANTAGES OF THE SHALLOW AND DEEP WATER AQUIFER -S, <br />TOM TESSIER OF GERAGHTY & MILLER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT <br />HE*HAS VERIFIED THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE"FIGURES SHOWN IN THE <br />REPORT FROM CAPE CORAL, AND THEY ARE AS CURRENT AND UP-TO-DATE AS <br />CAN BE ESTIMATED. HE STATED THAT HE WENT BACK AS FAR AS THE REVERSE <br />OSMOSIS PLANT GOES, AND THEIR COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN INCREASING SIG- <br />NIFICANTLY, WHICH LEADS HIM TO BELIEVE THEIR COST PROJECTIONS FOR <br />1979-80 WILL BE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS FELT THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE <br />WERE LOOKING AT THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT WAS BECAUSE OF THE WATER <br />QUALITY IN THE AREA AND THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHAT WATER STANDARDS <br />WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE GAMBLE AGAINST THE <br />POSSIBLE HIGHER COSTS OF THE REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM. HE CONTINUED <br />THAT WHAT CONCERNS HIM IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH ENERGY COSTS <br />WHICH MAY DOUBLE AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT OUR GAMBLE. <br />TOM TESSIER COMMENTED THAT THEY COMPARED MANPOWER, ELECTRI- <br />CAL AND CHEMICAL COSTS. HE NOTED THAT THE COSTS FOR LIME SOFTENING <br />ARE ENERGY BASED ALSO. <br />MR, ENG POINTED OUT THAT IT TAKES LESS PEOPLE TO OPERATE <br />A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT. HE STATED THAT IF ENERGY COSTS SHOULD <br />DOUBLE, YOUR REVERSE OSMOSIS COSTS WILL NOT DOUBLE. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED IF WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THE <br />DER WOULD LOOK MORE FAVORABLY ON A REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT, AND JOHN <br />ROBBINS STATED THAT THEY JUST INSIST THAT THE WATER MEET THE DRINK- <br />ING WATER STANDARDS. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.