My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/24/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
9/24/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:43:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/24/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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 />The estimated lump sum consultant fee to provide services addressed <br />in Tasks 1 through 4 will be as follows: <br />Task 1 is based on negotiation $ 43,9.03.00 <br />Task 2 is based on negotiation 49,644.00 <br />Task 3 is based upon an average 212,890.00 <br />of 10 hours per day of resident <br />services during construction <br />Task 4 is based on negotiation 42,200.00 <br />Total consulting fee: $348,637.00 <br />Percentage of the construction cost is: +/— 11.25% <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of <br />County Commissioners approve the agreement and Work Authorization <br />No. 1 to proceed with study, design, permitting, and services during <br />construction of the deep injection well effluent disposal system, <br />and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. <br />Attorney Vitunac referred the Board to the proposed <br />agreement with CH2M Hill Southeast and advised that under Article <br />6 he would like to delete entirely Paragraph E, which is titled <br />Limitation of Liability; and also under Article 6, he would like <br />to delete Paragraph K, Legal Action, to replace it to say that <br />"The Statute of Limitations shall be as provided by Florida law." <br />Commissioner Eggert asked that Utilities Director Pinto <br />address the reasons for not doing an industrial deep injection <br />well right away. <br />Director Pinto noted this has not been an easy project to <br />bring to the Board. It is one that is a matter of great <br />importance to the County, and it has been given a considerable <br />amount of thought over the years in looking at alternatives and <br />in looking at needs for this well other than just wastewater <br />treatment. The deep well does fit into the master plan for <br />reuse, and it also plays a part in the master plan for solid <br />waste. There is a deep well located at the Hercules plant, which <br />is in the vicinity where we want to build this one, and early on <br />we talked to the Hercules people about the possibility of <br />eliminating their well and connecting into ours or making some <br />use of theirs. As to the issue of an industrial well rather than <br />municipal, this has been tossed around quite a bit, and we are <br />becoming more and more convinced that the industrial well is <br />going to be needed and that it i•s just a matter of when. This <br />then becomes a matter of economics. As stated in staff's memo, <br />upgrading to an industrial well would cost an additional <br />$1,500,000 but that would include all appurtenances that would be <br />connected to treatment plant, pump stations, lines, etc. For <br />just the well itself, we would estimate $700,000 as the <br />difference between an industrial and municipal well. There would <br />SEP 24 1,991 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.