My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/4/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
6/4/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:24:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/04/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 />eliminate duplication and avoid oversized lines. He felt it is <br />very important for the County to proceed with one master plan to <br />combine water, sewer and reuse to assist Utilities in proper <br />development of the community for flow capacity. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt there are different people with <br />different areas of expertise with each firm being skilled in one <br />particular area rather than one firm being expert in all three <br />disciplines. <br />Director Pinto stated the objective is a community -wide plan <br />for flow capacity and location of a plant, as opposed to the design <br />of the plant itself. The design of any plant would be addressed <br />specifically when it becomes an issue. <br />Commissioner Scurlock remarked when firms present proposals <br />they generally recommend departing from the master plan and, in <br />fact, when comparing the existing master plans with plans that are <br />in process there are deviations. Commissioner Eggert felt that is <br />an argument for updating the water and wastewater master plans. <br />Director Pinto confirmed the inconsistencies, but emphasized <br />that the master plan for water and wastewater did not get into <br />studying what type of disposal you would need for wastewater or <br />what type of water treatment you would need for water. He stressed <br />how important it is to keep that part independent because that can <br />change at any time. However, he felt the layout itself, the <br />routing of the water lines and what the demand is going to be has <br />been followed closely but we find conflict between three master <br />plans, particularly when it comes to line size and routes. <br />Commissioner Scurlock mentioned the conflict on north U.S.1 <br />regarding not having enough flow and the question of building two <br />smaller lines to take care of a stagnation problem or building one <br />big one and finding some ways to address the problem. <br />Director Pinto noted, although the old master plan was a 20 - <br />year plan, a master planner must look at growth pattern and the <br />economics and timing of constructing lines. <br />Chairman Bird asked if there are firms that have a combined <br />expertise to do a combined master plan to bring all three entities <br />into consideration and Director Pinto said yes. <br />Chairman Bird was hopeful this would not be starting from <br />scratch or reinventing the wheel on three master plans. <br />Director Pinto wanted the project to involve studying our <br />growth pattern as it relates to line sizing. One example he gave <br />was Vero Lake Estates and whether it would be cost-effective to put <br />in a subsystem there for water treatment. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt the only change is going to be in <br />effluent disposal. <br />17 <br />F'.�'it ;)-L XJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.