My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/9/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
4/9/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:52 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:21:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/09/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
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
3mx 43 PAGE.2.21 <br />FOR ONE PRODUCTION WELL, ONE OBSERVATION WELL, AND ONE DEEP MONITOR- <br />ING -WELL WHILE SCENARIO 3 WOULD HAVE TWO PRODUCTION WELLS AND ONE <br />F <br />OBSERVATION WELL. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE FELT EVEN THE <br />INITIAL SYSTEM WILL NEED TWO PRODUCTION WELLS BEFORE IT CAN OPERATE <br />AND CONTINUED THAT EVEN IF THE FINAL DIVERSION WERE TO BE APPROVED <br />AT ONLY 80% OF WHAT THE COUNTY WAS REQUESTING, THERE STILL WOULD BE <br />A NEED FOR TWO PRODUCTION WELLS. HE, THEREFORE, FELT IT WOULD BE <br />ADVISABLE TO GO WITH SCENARIO 3 AND NOTED THAT THEY CANT FINALIZE <br />THE SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL THE BOARD MAKES THIS DECISION. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH MAKING <br />ANY DECISION AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO SPEND <br />OVER $100,000; THEY WERE JUST HANDED THIS INFORMATION FIVE MINUTES <br />AGO; AND THIS WAS AGENDAED AS A PROGRESS REPORT, <br />MR. ENG STATED THAT HE DID NOT REALIZE MR. TESSIER HAD <br />INTENDED TO ASK FOR ANY DECISION AT THIS TIME, AND HE SUGGESTED <br />THAT THEY BID TWO ALTERNATIVES TO SEE HOW THEY CAME OUT AND THEN <br />MAKE THE DECISION. <br />MR. TESSIER AGREED THIS COULD BE DONE SINCE HE HAD THE <br />SPECIFICATIONS FOR THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF WELLS, BUT IT WOULD <br />SIMPLIFY THE BIDDING PROCESS IF THE BOARD COULD MAKE THE DECISION <br />BEFORE HAND. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T EVEN <br />HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THEIR CONSULTANTS, AND HE DID NOT WANT <br />TO MAKE A DECISION_ TODAY ; - - <br />ATTORNEY _COLLINS INQUIRED ABOUT PLANS IN REGARD TO THE SITE. <br />MR. ENG NOTED THAT THEIR TIME SCHEDULE PROJECTED ADVERTISING <br />FOR BID ON THE TEST WELLS SOMETIME AROUND MAY 5TH, AND THEY WOULD <br />HOPE TO GET INTO CONSTRUCTION OF THE TEST WELLS IN JUNE, HE STATED <br />THAT HE HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE PROPOSAL <br />WHICH MR. TESSIER HAS PUT TOGETHER, BUT WOULD HOPE DURING THE TECHNI- <br />CAL PREPARATION OF THE BIDDING PROCESS TO REVIEW THIS AND THEN MAKE <br />A RECOMMENDATION. MR. ENG COMMENTED THAT HE HAD ONLY INTENDED TO <br />GIVE A PROGRESS REPORT TODAY. HE DID NOTE THAT THE PROJECTED COST <br />IS WELL WITHIN THE ESTIMATED COST FOR THE -BUDGET. HE CONTINUED <br />THAT THEY HAVE MADE INITIAL CONTACTS IN REGARD TO LOCATION OF A SITE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.