My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/22/2009 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
09/22/2009 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2022 12:09:21 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:22:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/22/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4030
Book and Page
138, 068-128
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7378
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the sand boring samples tested, the <br />definition of "best sand", and the "fluff' factor. <br />Charles Rowan, Rowan Construction, spoke about his experience with dredging mines, <br />construction, equipment, and sand boring samples. <br />Donald Dansby emphasized that truck drivers usually take the fastest, shortest and <br />easiest route to get to their destinations, and felt it would be the same situation with Ranger's <br />trucks when transporting the sand. He also believed the SUI mine had the best sand per the <br />County's consultant evaluation. <br />Brian Davis, owner of the SUI mine, calculated the different routes which the transport <br />trucks could/would use, and the total mileage for each. He did not understand the logic for <br />awarding Ranger Construction the bid award when their travel routes would add an additional <br />520,104 additional miles of truck traffic to the local roads. <br />The Vice Chairman called a break at 2:28 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 2:3 7p.m., <br />with all members present. <br />Attorney Thalwitzer listed the reasons why he believed the competitive bid process was <br />violated, and asked the Board to reconsider their decision and award the contract to SUI. <br />37 <br />September 22, 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.