My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/4/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
6/4/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:53 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:29:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/04/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
� � r <br />MR. ENG THEN POINTED OUT THE ALTERNATE SITES ON A MAP. <br />ALTERNATE #1 IS ON KING`S HIGHWAY, AND IS THE SITE FOR WHICH THE <br />DER HAS ISSUED A PERMIT. ALTERNATE #2 A 40 ACRE SITE, IS LOCATED <br />ON L,INDSEY ROAD IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF WHERE WE WOULD COME OUT OF THE <br />LIFT STATION. MR, ENG THEN REVIEWED THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS FOR <br />ALTERNATES I AND 2. HE NOTED THAT AN APPRAISAL WAS MADE OF ALTERNATE <br />I/ WHICH THE <br />COUNTY <br />ALREADY <br />OWNS, <br />AND A <br />PRICE OF <br />$5,500 <br />PER ACRE, OR <br />$110,000 WAS <br />SET. <br />THIS IS <br />SHOWN <br />AS A <br />RELATIVE <br />FIGURE <br />IN ORDER TO <br />COMPARE COSTS;. THEY INCLUDED A 15% CONTINGENCY FOR INFLATION. MR. <br />ENG NEXT DISCUSSED THE AMOUNT OF FORCE MAIN THAT WOULD NOT BE NECES- <br />SARY WITH ALTERNATE 2 AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THEY USED FIGURES <br />FROM THE BID TABULATION AND ADJUSTED THEM TO DETERMINE THE CONSTRUC- <br />TION COST FOR ALTERNATE 2. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ALTERNATE 2 SITE <br />WILL REQUIRE FENCE, WILL NECESSITATE BUILDING AN ACCESS ROAD, AND ALSO <br />WILL NECESSITATE MOVING THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ONE SITE TO ANOTHER. <br />ALL THESE FACTORS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL COST. THE ADDITIONAL <br />ENGINEERING WORK FOR THE NEW SITE WOULD BE AROUND $18,000; YOU HAVE <br />TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCEDURE - HAVE THE SOIL ANALYSIS - <br />MEET WITH THE DER, ETC. MR. ENG CONTINUED THAT THE CAPACITY OF <br />THE PLANT AT EITHER SITE IS STILL 100,000 GPD. DER WILL ALLOW YOU <br />TO DISCHARGE 50,000 GPD FOR THE FIRST YEAR: -THEN, AFTER -THE FIRST <br />YEAR, THEY WILL ISSUE A LARGER EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PERMIT. HE STATED <br />THAT THEY WOULD APPLY FOR THE 100,000 GPD AND LET THE DER APPLY THE <br />RESTRICTION. <br />THE BOARD CONTINUED TO DISCUSS COSTS, AND COMMISSIONER Loy <br />NOTED THAT FOR $50,000 OR.SO, WE WOULD BE GETTING A.LOT MORE ROOM. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED ABOUT TIMING, AND ENGINEER ENG <br />STATED THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE PERMIT APPLICATION TO <br />THE DER WITHIN ABOUT 60 DAYS. HE FELT THE DER WOULD PUT A PRIORITY <br />ON THE REVIEW, WHICH WOULD TAKE AT LEAST 30 DAYS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INQUIRED AS TO WHO DID THE APPRAISAL, AND <br />MR. BEINDORF STATED THAT IT WAS FLOYD WILKES. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF WE DID DECIDE TO GO TO THE <br />ALTERNATE SITE, IF WE WOULD RETAIN THE OTHER 20 ACRES, AND CHAIRMAN <br />SEIBERT STATED THAT WAS NOT HIS FEELING. <br />93 bd 43 PAGE"01 <br />JUN 4 1980 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.