My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/03/2011
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2011
>
05/03/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2016 11:21:45 AM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:05:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
SWDD
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/03/2011
Meeting Body
Solid Waste Disposal Board
Archived Roll/Disk#
4048
Book and Page
140, 838-842
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Responding to queries from the Board , Director Mehta described the differences between <br /> the two types of Customer Convenience Center facilities , and explained why it would cost so <br /> much to build the Fellsmere model at the Oslo location . <br /> The Board wondered whether all the Customer Convenience Centers should have a <br /> universal operating system , and if the expense for redesigning and building the new Oslo facility <br /> would be equivalent to constructing the Fellsmere model at the site . <br /> Director Mehta proposed returning to the Board in several months with further <br /> information, after a feasibility study is done . <br /> Several Commissioners voiced concerns about the County having to go out to rebid , if <br /> the first part of staff s recommendation (to deny all bids ) , is approved . <br /> Discussion followed , with input from Attorney Polackwich, on how long the bids would <br /> be valid for , and whether they could be extended . <br /> Commissioner Davis suggested the prudent thing to do would be to approve only the <br /> second portion of staff s recommendation, to authorize additional engineering services to do the <br /> feasibility study of the alternate system . <br /> Director Mehta, via overhead projection , displayed slides of the Marion County facility , <br /> showing the " flat" on grade-type facility that utilizes a compactor . IIe responded to questions <br /> about the differences in operating costs for each of the systems , and whether it would cost more <br /> if there were two different systems . <br /> Dialogue continued as the Board , with input from Administrator Baird , discussed the best <br /> way to proceed with the feasibility study without losing the existing bids . <br /> May 3 , 2011 3 <br /> S .W .D .D . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.