Laserfiche WebLink
r MAY 18 1983 �i <br />6(vLJx3 °ACE 536 <br />wishes a different disinfection system. He noted that our <br />South County water system has a totally different -water <br />resource, and we won't create THMs because the water from <br />the shallow aquifer has a different content. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked if we are delaying some <br />expenditure we are going to have to make at some future <br />date, and the Administrator stated that there will be no <br />need for additional disinfection later at this site. <br />Mr. Pinto pointed out that in any event, the DER would <br />not give a permit with the chlorination system. <br />Discussion then ensued regarding item 3 - deleting <br />interior painting of the ground storage tank, and <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the cost benefit <br />relationship and whether we are foolish to eliminate this. <br />Engineer Robbins reported that there appears to be no <br />disadvantage in not painting the interior, but there is an <br />advantage in economics. <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired about long range <br />maintenance, and Mr. Robbins did not feel it will be a <br />problem. <br />Re item 4 - silent check valves in lieu of <br />hydraulically actuated and lever and weight check valves - <br />Mr. Wills noted that an alternate bid item was included in <br />the -bid, and they have elected to use that item. <br />Question arose -as to cost justification, and Mr. Pinto <br />stated that the cost of hydraulic valves cannot be <br />justified. <br />Administrator Wright again brought up item 1 and wished <br />to have more justification of the cost of the underground <br />electric because he could not see why it would cost $17,728 <br />to run underground 1,0001. He asked whether we need the <br />electrical approved between now and next Wednesday, and if <br />not, suggested that the Hoard withhold action on item 1. <br />Mr. Robbins felt that painting is the main problem. <br />