Laserfiche WebLink
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE TO APPROVE THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED IN <br />THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1981. <br />DISCUSSION AROSE ABOUT ENGINEERING COSTS WHICH WERE NOT <br />INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED FUNDING OF $10,000, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON <br />REPORTED THAT THE CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN <br />AND BEINDORF & ASSOCIATES HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL STAGES <br />OF THE LANDFILL OPERATION IN 1976, <br />IN FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT WE NEED <br />ANNUAL OR SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF ALL CONTRACTS, AS TO SPECIFIC ENGINEER- <br />ING COSTS ON THIS MATTER, ENGINEER VOTAPKA STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO <br />RESEARCH THEIR RECORDS AND REPORT BACK. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO INCLUDE IN THE MOTION THAT <br />ALL COSTS THAT ARE INVOLVED ARE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED AND CHARGED <br />TO THE LANDFILL ACCOUNT, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK HAD NO OBJECTION, <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND <br />CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, <br />PERMIT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT <br />AND THE COUNTY IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES, <br />51 <br />BOOK 47 PAGE 518 <br />