My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/5/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
3/5/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:32:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/05/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
Disadvantages of this proposal is that it eliminates the bid procedure <br />and the freeze risk clause that the County used in the 1985-86 season. <br />OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY: <br />Option I Continue with Riverfront providing the caretaking services, <br />and they will market the 1986-87 crop. <br />Option 11 Select a new citrus management service to provide the neces- <br />sary caretaking services and continue with the present bid <br />procedure. <br />It is felt that if the County wishes to continue with a standard <br />bid procedure and freeze risk clause, then the County should select <br />Option II. <br />Intergovernmental Relations Director Tommy Thomas explained <br />that the reason that Riverfront Citrus has taken this position is <br />due to a misunderstanding about marketing the fruit. At the time <br />the bid was awarded to them, he had notified their grove <br />caretaker, who is no longer with them, but apparently he did not <br />notify Mr. Knight, who was under the impression that he would be <br />selling the fruit as he does with all his other accounts. They <br />did do a tremendous job for us during the year on the maintenance <br />of the grove and the Board will have a report soon reflecting <br />this in the amount of surplus dollars. We had a very good year. <br />In addition, Riverfront is aware of this situation, but have <br />agreed to do whatever we feel is necessary until such time that <br />we make other arrangements. In fact, they fertilized and sprayed <br />for us last week. The recommendation is that if the Board wishes <br />to continue with the standard bid procedure and freeze risk <br />option, then we should go with Option II. If the Board does not <br />wish to have the bid or freeze risk clause,,staff wishes to make <br />it clear that they are completely satisfied with Riverfront's <br />maintenance program. <br />Director Thomas felt that as a public entity, the County <br />should go to bid and recalled that this Board took that position <br />last year. His recommendation would be to select a new citrus <br />management service to provide the necessary caretaker services <br />and continue with the present bid procedure. <br />34 <br />Book 63 Fa.c-L R?2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.