My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/5/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
2/5/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:07:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />FEB 5 1985 BOOK 59 FvXH 746 <br />DISCUSSION RE ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR DESIGN OF PLANT <br />It was noted that this item had not been included on the <br />agenda as had been intended. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously <br />added to the agenda consideration on engineering <br />consulting service from Williams., Hatfield, <br />Stoner/Carter. <br />Director Pinto stated that staff would ask .the Board to <br />authorize a work order under the existing contract with the <br />consulting firm mentioned in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for <br />the design and permitting of the wastewater plant for the SR 60 <br />area, and before the numbers exceed $60,000, staff would come <br />back to the Board. <br />Commissioner Scurlock reported that Williams, Hatfield came <br />up with an initial price of $115,000, which was entirely <br />unsatisfactory; we then negotiated them down to $80,000, at which <br />time we contacted two other firms who said they would be willing <br />to render this service for $60,OOOif it did not require extensive <br />redesign from the standard basic system. Williams, Hatfield then <br />came down to $60,000. <br />Director Pinto pointed out that this price was based on <br />taking treatment plants that have already been built with a <br />tested type of treatment and utilizing those plans. When we get <br />further into the site itself, if there are any changes that have <br />to be made, or if the DER asks for changes in the treatment <br />process that would inflate that cost, staff would come back to <br />the Board for direction. He felt this should take us all the way <br />through design, permitting and construction. <br />Administrator Wright wished to make it plain that this is <br />not a package plant per se; it is a permanent sewer plant that <br />will be with us from now on. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.