Laserfiche WebLink
OUT FOR BID AGAIN, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A REVISED ENGINEERING <br />ESTIMATE READY TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING AND <br />POSSIBLY AT THAT TIME RECOMMEND THE ENTIRE PROJECT GO FOR REBID. <br />HE NOTED THAT THE PLAN THEY HAVE PREPARED IS BASED ON ALTERNATE #6. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />DEESON, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED THE ENGINEERS TO PROCEED, <br />USING ALTERNATE #6 AS OUTLINED IN THE JOINT VENTURE'S MEMO OF <br />APRIL 1, 1980. <br />RALPH ENG, ENGINEER WITH THE JOINT VENTURE, CAME BEFORE <br />THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, WHICH PRESENT A COST <br />EVALUATION ON THE PROPOSED ALTERNATE SITES FOR THE GIFFORD SEWAGE <br />TREATMENT PLANT. HE EXPLAINED THAT AN ADJUSTMENT IN FIGURES AND A <br />MATHMATICAL ERROR RESULTED IN THE TOTAL COST OF THE TWO SITES BEING <br />CHANGED AS FOLLOWS: <br />ALTERNATE N0, 1 FROM $432,181,15 TO $433,681.25 <br />ALTERNATE N0. 2 FROM $385,566.75 TO $380,566,75 <br />JUN 4 1980 87 soon 4, Pacf 69a <br />