3/11/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

transportation costs. She thought the difficulty was getting adequate information out to the public. Commissioner Ginn theorized that when the public does not have the facts, then they begin to suspect many different things. She thought that a workshop should have been held earlier. She stressed that the waste conversion park was a very expensive and significant project and thought it was prudent to be cautious. Responding to Mr. Zorc's comments, Commissioner Ginn replied that dead is dead, INRIVCO is dead. Chairman Eggert asserted that the company is no longer an issue, but the Board must discuss whether or not to have staff negotiate with the second bidder. Commissioner Macht believed it needed to be stated that much of what is happening in the community is based on INRIVCO's draft contract to the County. The County's counter offer was much different, and was much more favorable to the County. He doubted that INRIVCO would have signed it and that would have terminated the relationship. Administrator Chandler added that staff were attempting to negotiate an acceptable contract, but they never arrived at that point. Commissioner Ginn thought the public feared that it would be accepted without adequate public input. Chairman Eggert appreciated that concern, and reiterated that the Board would have had as many workshops as needed before going to public hearing. Mr. Zorc appreciated their comments but stressed that there cannot be a better way to obtain public input than a vote on a referendum. He asked Commissioner Ginn if she would support a referendum, and she declined to comment on that question, saying she had not had time to think it through. Commissioner Macht commented that historically many state referendums have been generated because the Legislature would not enact laws they should have, and some have had disastrous results. Mr. Zorc thanked the Board for the opportunity of appearing before them. 21 March 11, 1997 BOCK F'�r