My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/6/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
8/6/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:10 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:40:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/06/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
6 <br />BOOK 83 Fa6F, <br />clarified that when staff said "selected," it meant after the <br />Board has selected the firms. <br />In further discussion, it was confirmed that this would just <br />authorize staff to go out with RFPs and then follow our normal <br />procedure, and the big issue is whether the firm selected would <br />be disqualified for further participation in designing any future <br />projects. <br />Director Pinto noted that the down side of that restriction <br />is that you will limit the firms that will apply for this type of <br />work because they would prefer design work rather than planning <br />work, but he felt there are enough qualified firms out there that <br />we will be able to get a qualified firm. He pointed out that <br />after they are selected and have updated the plans, this would <br />put them in a very independent position to state how anything <br />done by the engineer that is selected to do the design would <br />affect the master plan. In that sense, they are totally <br />independent, and he felt in that sense the pros outweigh the <br />cons. <br />Discussion continued as to the benefits and the disadvan- <br />tages of this approach, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out <br />that this restriction could eliminate a firm from further <br />participation in design for many years. <br />Director Pinto clarified that we are saying that if they do <br />the master plan, they don't design anything in it; however, they <br />do continue as the master plan consultants, and if someone should <br />suggest a deviation from the master plan, they would make a <br />recommendation. <br />Commissioner Eggert wished an explanation of just how these <br />consultants would be used and when. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed that staff could address any <br />minor deviation, but if it is something more important, then the <br />consultant could be brought in to address how it would affect the <br />master plan. The question of the possible effect of a major <br />rezoning arose. <br />Administrator Chandler felt a large part of that would be <br />covered in our existing Comprehensive Plan and projected land <br />uses, -but Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that an increase in <br />population affects the size of the lines you need. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt that decision would be made in the <br />first update of the master plan, but Director Pinto brought up <br />the possibility that somebody may want to put a small development <br />in an area where the plan calls for a 24" line. In that type <br />situation, we must decide if we build something that just <br />services them or whether we possibly should change the plan to <br />build a dual line or just how to approach this. He explained <br />46 <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.