My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/7/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
5/7/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:24:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/07/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
Head Spacing <br />A Toro spokesman acting on behalf of the architect stated in the meet- <br />ing that we placed the Rain Bird heads in critical single row areas <br />an 90 foot centers. This is not correct - the spacing in those criti- <br />cal areas ranges between 65 and 70 foot centers. <br />A review of the procurement to date would show that the specifications were <br />changed several times to allow our competition to justify a higher price. <br />Further information was presented to the Commission that did not accurately <br />set forth the analysis of the two designs. <br />I am looking forward to your prompt response to this letter before our <br />firm takes further action. <br />Very y yours, <br />George eenfield <br />Golf Manager <br />I704 S. Missouri Ave. <br />Mr. Michael Wright <br />County Administrator <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />1840 25th Street . <br />Vero Beach, FL 32960 <br />Dear Mike: <br />LINKS DESIGN INC. <br />Lakeland, Florida 33801 <br />F COURSE ARCHITECT <br />(813) 688-8383 <br />April 30, 1986 <br />I would like to respond to several comments Mr. Greenfield made in his <br />April 22, 1986 letter. <br />I would like you to understand that we did not invite either the Toro <br />representative or the Rainbird representative to the April 16 County <br />Commission Meeting. Mr. Glover, the Toro representative attended the <br />meeting at his company's direction, and was acting on his own behalf. <br />Before discussing the differences of each system Mr. Greenfield <br />addressed, I would like to make it clear that Links Design, Inc. does <br />not care which company's irrigation system is installed at Sandridge <br />Golf Course. Our primary concern is that Sandridge Golf Course gets the <br />irrigation system that best satisfies the site's needs. <br />The site is extremely sandy. This means -water will perculate through <br />the soil rapidly, therefore it is important to chose the irrigation <br />system that can supply the most water within the shortest time period <br />(to save on electricity costs). To put 2 inches of water on the greens <br />and 1 1/2 inches of water on the tees and fairways, Toro -requires 10 <br />hours per night for 6 nights per week. However, Rainbird requires 10 <br />1/2 hours per night for 7 nights per week. The Rainbird system puts out <br />432,000 gallons in one day on 18 holes, while the Toro system puts out <br />585,000 gallons per day for 18 holes. This means that the Toro system <br />.puts out the most water in the shortest time period. <br />We calculated how much it would cost to operate both pump stations using <br />the General Service Demand Rate Schedule (GSD -1) and the General Service <br />Demand Time of Use Rate (GSDT-1) each year. These calculations were <br />based on the rates Mr. Jody Elovitz of F.P. & L provided: <br />GSD -1 <br />Toro <br />Rainbird <br />24,969.00 <br />23,528.40 <br />GSDT-1 (time of use) <br />Toro <br />Rainbird <br />65 <br />12,482.10 <br />12,870.54 <br />BOOK 64 FA�F 351 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.