My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/16/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
4/16/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:14:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/16/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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
M <br />Mr. Komarinetz clarified that the two firms were tied as <br />opposed to being first and second, and the third firm was dropped <br />from consideration. <br />Administrator Chandler explained that because of the time <br />limit and the need for design and the time limit on financing this <br />was authorized by the Board and was done without CCNA. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised the CCNA just requires you read the <br />written material. You don't have to interview, you can choose from <br />just the written material, and they chose to interview the two <br />firms since it was a tie vote. <br />Commissioner Scurlock had numerous questions in regard to <br />contracting engineering services for a lake to be used in <br />connection with the County wastewater system and effluent disposal <br />and clearly defining the scope of services to interface that <br />engineering with the engineering needed to work with Mr. Garl on <br />the golf course lakes. <br />Administrator Chandler agreed that if there's going to be any <br />question, it is going to have to be closely coordinated between the <br />utilities engineer and the golf course engineer because the golf <br />course engineer is going to be looking at this from his perspective <br />relative to its effect on the golf course, and St. Johns and the <br />Utilities Consultant relative to use of the effluent. There is no <br />question that neither one operatesin a vacuum and that is not our <br />intent. <br />Commissioner Scurlock was concerned because the specific <br />points are not spelled out in the contract. He realized Mr. Pinto <br />has clearly in his mind what he wants but it does not seem to be <br />addressed in the documents. <br />Discussion continued at length regarding delineating the <br />responsibilities of each engineering consultant and also as to <br />which lake is to be designed by which engineer. Director Davis and <br />Director Keating indicated these points had been covered in <br />discussions with the consultant, but Commissioner Scurlock and <br />Commissioner Eggert specifically wanted it spelled out in the <br />contract. Question arose about the emergency nature of this <br />contract, and Chairman Bird explained we have to get the <br />engineering started to meet the timetable; the architect has to <br />have certain data to begin the drawings; and we need to get started <br />with various permitting processes as soon as possible. <br />Commissioner Scurlock said, if time is of the essence, he <br />would not mind approving it at this time contingent on Mr. Chandler <br />signing off on it. <br />Mr. Chandler said that was fine. <br />53 <br />L- APR 10 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.