4/16/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 64 taking into consideration the difference in operating costs based on the horsepower of the pumps used and the operating cost per kilowatt hour, which he figured at $12,000 a year more for the Toro system. Mr. Sheldon noted that it must be taken into account that FPBL has a time -of -use discount rate, which November through April is based on an 8 hour use envelope; the rest of the year, it is a 15 hour envelope. He stated that the difference between operating the systems based on the regular rate is $12,000 but the difference in the actual cost of running the systems using the time -of -use rate is only $300 with Toro being the less expensive. Chairman Scurlock noted that we still have a $34,000 difference between the two, but Commissioner Bird pointed out that the other $10,000 will be plugged into the cost of the third nine and it will be paid eventually. Debate continued as to the original cost and operating costs of the two systems. Chairman Scurlock continued to discuss watering times and operation over six hours and did not under- stand why the specifications weren't the same for both suppliers. Mr. Sheldon noted that basically both bidders were told the same thing - they weren't told anything...,..- - Chairman Scurlock did not feel the architect should have had to design the irrigation system, but he did feel he should at least have specified how much water is needed. Commissioner Bird informed the Board that probably 90% of the golf courses in Florida over the last ten years have used Toro equipment, and he would recommend we pay the difference for the Toro system because he believed it will give us additional assurance of the water capacity we may find we need because of the soil characteristics of the course. Administrator Wright wanted the Board to understand the Toro bid does not contain certain items such as concrete for thrust 63