HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/2/1987y
Monday, February 2, 1987
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met for a Special Call Workshop at the County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Monday,
February 2, 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Don C.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Baiczun, County Administrator; Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and
Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that
it is for the purpose of having a presentation re the Solid Waste
Master Plan, per the following notice:
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County will hold a Special
Call Workshop on February 2, 1987, at
9:00 a.m. Camp, Dresser & McKee,
consulting engineers for the County, will
address major issues regarding the Solid
Waste Master Plan.
The Special Call Workshop will be held
in the Board of County Commission
Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
-Florida.
Dated this 27th day of JanucAry, 1987
BOARD OF COUNTY r"""hA1GS10NERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNT
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.-,
Jan. 29, 30, 31, 1987
Director Pinto advised that ti
four books, which they are going t
Waste Master Plan Sludge Managerr
Management Feasibility Study - anc
These books are on file in the Cor
Director Pinto noted that they ar
take any action this morning; staff will be cuim..yBoor
FSB 2 1987
FEB 21997
BOOK .
Board for permission for implementation, but some of these things
will require fairly immediate action.
Director Pinto then introduced Larry Adams, head of the
Solid Waste MasterPlan project for Camp, Dresser & McKee.
Mr. Adams informed the Board the Camp, Dresser & McKee is a
nationally recognized consulting firm, which specializes entirely
in the environmental field and has over 1,800 employees
nationally. He then -reviewed the impressive credentials and
achievements of the staff members working on this study, noting
that the former project manager resigned in December and is now
head of the Florida DER. Mr. Adams introduced Project Managers
Bob Hauser and Dan Strowbridge, who will discuss solid waste
management, Donald Munksgaard, who will review the septage and
grease management study, and Dan Anderson, rate specialist.
Mr. Hauser took the floor and gave an overview of their
approach to the solid waste master plan, i.e., evaluation of the
existing landfill and analysis of alternatives, including
resource recovery feasibility, energy markets, transfer stations,
etc., and then asked Dan Strowbridge to discuss development of
the plan.
Mr. Strowbridge reported that, in addition to lack of
disposal capacity, it was found there were inadequate environ-
mental controls at the existing Landfill, which was developed
without a liner and a leachate collection system. They also
found that the solid waste collection transfer green box system
was inefficient, and there is a problem with dead animal and
infectious waste disposal. They further found inefficient
handling of materials at the air curtain incinerator (pit burner)
and significant deterioration of that facility. Those were the
basic problems which they felt must be addressed. He noted the
county is currently generating 260 tons of waste materials a day,
and this will increase significantly in the next twenty years.
Mr. Strowbridge then addressed problems with the collection
and transfer system, citing high unit operating costs, Litter
2
M
accumulations at the present facilities, vandalism, and also the
lack of a finance mechanism other than just general fund
revenues. He advised that they looked at the three following
alternatives:
1. Continuation of the existing system - the existing collection
system would continue to be managed and.operated as it is now, the
existing pit burner operation would be unchanged and the landfill
would be expanded to accommodate future waste quantities.
This concept has two sub -options:
• Move management of the transfer collection system to utilities
with other solid waste functions.
s Modify (reduce) collection system crew size.
2. The second concept includes landfilling through expansion of the
existing site and converting the existing transfer collection
station system to a convenience center system featuring site
controls, site monitoring and compactors with closed containers.
3. The third alternative includes resource recovery with franchised
mandatory door-to-door collection. ry
Table 9-1 compares costs between the three alternative
systems that were evaluated:
FEB Z i,,io Boa 67 i,v!A6
rFEB 2 1987
1986
Existing System2
Annual Tonnage 15,900
Unit ($/ton) Cost $ 24.30
Annual Cost 386,200
Cost/Residence/
Year 14.00
Convenience Center
BOOK 6 7 F v)'. 16
TABLE 9-1
)
SUMMARY OF COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
1990 1995 2000 2005
2010
19,500
24,000
28,200
32,700
37,900
$ 32.80
$ 39.90
$ 48.60
$ 59.10,
$ 71.90
639,600
957,600
1,370,500
1,932,500
2,725,000
17.10
20.10
23.40
27.70
33.40
Annual Tonnage
15,900
19,500
24,000
28,200
32,700
37,900
Unit ($/ton) Costl $
23.40
$ 23.30
$ 24.50
$ 26.80
$ 29.65
$ 33.00
Annual Cost
371,300
454,400
588,000
755,800
969,700
1,251,800
Cost/Residence/Year
13.40
12.20
12.30
12.90
13.90
15.30
Door-To-Door2
Annual Tonnage 32,900
41,500
53,000
65,100
77,400
90,800
Unit ($/ton) Costi $ 55.80
$ 65.20
$ 79.40
$ 96.60
$ 117.50
$ 142.90
Annual Cost 2,330,000
3,432,000
5,340,000
7,982,000
11,543,000
16,470,000
Cost/Residence/Year 78.60
92.00
112.00
136..00
166.00
202.00
1 Solid Waste Disposal (Tipping Fees) are not included.
2 Does not include Vero Beach residences.
Note: All figures are rounded.
Mr. Strowbridge informed the Board that the convenience
center approach would reduce the cost for the resident about
$5.00 per year, door-to-door collection is projected at a cost of
about $92.00 per residence per year in 1990, and if the existing
collection systdm is continued, they cannot improve its
efficiency. He reviewed in detail the convenience center
approach which would have compactors at the convenience stations
and an attendant on hand 12 hours a day.
Chairman Scurlock raised a question as to the ability to
4
sort materials at such centers and also as to how large
appliances would be handled.
Mr. Strowbridge confirmed there wPlI be an ability to sort.
Two of the boxes will be open boxes for materials which are
destined for the air curtain incinerator, and large appliances
either can be put in the boxes or just set aside to be handled on
an as -needed basis as determined by the attendant. He noted
there is no fee structure directly associated with the conveni-
ence structure itself.
Mr. Strowbridge then reviewed their transportation analysis
and the need to accommodate not only private vehicles, but
collection route vehicles from the north county. In regard to
the situation in the north county, he advised that their analysis
indicated that amortization of the debt for providing the
transfer stations would increase costs by 350. It now costs
$8.50 to $9.00 a ton to transfer waste directly from the north
county, and the installation of a transfer station there would
cause those costs to escalate to $12.00 or $12.90 a ton; actually
waste volumes are small in that area. Mr. Strowbridge advised
that there should be about a 40 mile distance before transfer
stations make economic sense.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if the consultants included in
their projections a rapidly increasing growth for the area,
especially as she felt construction waste materials have been a
main problem there.
Mr. Strowbridge confirmed that they did, but emphasized this
relates to a function of distance more than anything else.
Commissioner Bowman wished to know if they included
Fellsmere in their projections, and Mr. Strowbridge advised that
. they even incorporating Fellsmere with Sebastian, they still came
out with the same increase.
Discussion continued at length about the consultant's
findings that there would be no economic advantage to the county
in providing a transfer station in the north county, and it was
5
FEB '�J 7
BOOK l� FA,r.
FEB
2 1987
BOOK
6.7 f1�;E 170
clarified that while
this would be a major expense of
the county,
any economic advantage derived would be only to the benefit of
the private waste collectors in that area.
Commissioner Bird asked about the advantage to the private
home owner. It was noted that there are drop-off sites available
for them, and Utilities Director Pinto explained that if we put
in the convenience station, our fees would have to increase to
the point where it would not be economical for them.
Mr. Strowbridge continued that 140 of the annual tonnage at
the landfill is simply woody material that can be consumed in a
pit burner. They, therefore, recommended continuing with the use
of a pit burner and one of a larger size. Animal disposal
involves about 2,200 carcasses a year which creates a major
problem at the landfill, and that is why they have recommended
the purchase and operation of a pathogenic incinerator at an
estimated capital cost of about $27,500 and annual operating
costs of $15,000.
As to resource recovery, Mr. Strowbridge reviewed tech-
nology, air emissions, energy markets, etc., and advised that if
the County did pursue resource recovery, they would recommend
that the mass -burn technology, which is described as follows, be
accepted.
166.3.1 MASS BURN SYSTEMS
The combustion of unprocessed solid waste, combined with heat recovery, is
currently the most widely practiced energy recovery technique in the world.
In a plant designed for mass burning, unprepared refuse (as received from
the collection vehicles with little or no sorting) is charged directly into
a combustion furnace and the heat generated by the combustion process is
recovered by waterwall radiation boilers in the form of steam. The steam
may be sold directly to a customer or converted to saleable electricity by
a turbine generator.
In the energy market evaluation, Mr. Strowbridge reported
that the energy products considered were steam and electricity.
Unfortunately, there are no major steam users in the county, and
6
he advised that after evaluating the possible users of
electricity, they talked with the Vero Beach Power Company and
Florida Power Light about resource recovery. The Vero Beach
Power Company is interested if the county does decide to go into
this, but does not want it to be harmful to the City's rate
payers.
Mr. Strowbridge next discussed the market for recycled
materials, i.e., aluminum cans, newspaper, etc., and stated that
they encourage such activity but do not make it a major recommen-
dation. He believed a voluntary recycling program would only
affect the landfill capacity from 1 to 3% since under such
programs you are lucky if you get 10% of the people to partici-
pate on a continuing basis. Mr. Strowbridge continued to discuss
costs and advised that their projections indicate there would be
a significant increase in fees if we went with resource recovery.
They, therefore, do not recommend pursuing resource recovery at
this time, but would recommend there be a periodic reevaluation
of the resource recovery option.
The last issue was site selection, and Mr. Strowbridge
explained the steps used to identify appropriate sites. He
advised that they came up with three general areas, two in the
south county on either side of the Expressway and a linear strip
of land to the north on the east of 1-95. After taking into
consideration all the various factors, advantages, disadvantages,
etc., the site that came out on top was the existing landfill.
The capacity is there, and with the purchase of an additional
adjoining 40 acres, they identify the existing landfill and
surrounding area as the optimum location. In addition, they
found that resource recovery could be easily located in close
proximity. Mr. Strowbridge then turned the discussion back over
to Bob Hauser to review the actual improvements they are
proposing.
FEB 2 1987 7 BOOK 67 F.� r 111
BOOK 67 rA,I'F 17
Mr. Hauser reviewed the following plan showing the site of
the existing landfill.
Mr. Hauser noted that the existing segment where the county
is operating currently will.probably run out of capacity by
summer or fall of this year. That cell was opened in 1977 and
at that time conformed with the environmental regulations, which
now have changed significantly and require liner systems for
positive control of leachate. They evaluated the site in terms
of its being expanded and see no problem with it being able to
comply with the new regulations; however, because the existing
segment has no liner, there is the potential of contamination,
and it is important that it be capped and sealed properly.
Mr. Hauser next discussed drainage, noting that all.of the
site drainage is directed into the area proposed for expansion,
and drainage management for the entire site is a major concern.
There is a 40 acre parcel in the area, which is not owned by the
county, and it is recommended this be purchased as it will pro-
vide flexibility to deal with drainage and possibly be used as a
borrow area or as a buffer. An additional problem at the site is
that some old septage lagoons have been abandoned and allowed to
8
dry out and also there is an existing septage area which is
unlined. Although the monitoring wells have not indicated any
environmental problems re contamination of ground water so far,
they have recommended that the dried out septage lagoons be
excavated and that material put back into the landfill space. As
to taking care of septage over the short term, Mr. Hauser advised
that they recommend going into segment II and lining an area to
use for septage until further facilities can be built. This
would fit in with the overall plan. Mr. Hauser emphasized that
the landfill site is a good site and very developable.
Mr. Hauser then reviewed their recommendation for a larger
pit burner because too much brush is going into the landfill. As
to having an air curtain incinerator in the north county, they
prefer a site where the county can exercise the most control and
recommend that the one at the present landfill be utilized to its
maximum. They do feel locating one in the north county can be
looked at, but would recommend it be done under county control.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about the potential of deep well
injection and whether there is excess capacity in the existing
deep well.
Mr. Hauser noted that would be a potential for leachate
disposal. There are a number of alternatives that could be
pursued, and they need to investigate this a little further. The
alternatives include collecting the leachate and circulating it
back on the landfill, which has been done quite successfully.
Mr. Hauser then reviewed Table 2-8 summarizing the costs
associated with the solid waste system capital improvements
program and Figure 10-1 outlining an 18 month program, which
tables are as follows:
9
BOOK. b iJ 1 r "E 1-73
TABLE 2-8
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
FISCAL YEAR
ITEM 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 TOTAL
Engineering Studies $140,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 140,000
Chipper for Trees and Logs - 77,000 - - - - 77,000
Construction of Landfill
Segment II - 2,363,000 - - - - 2,363,000
Landfill Segment I Closure
Costs - 1,680,000 - - - - 1,680,000
Land Purchase - 263,000 - - - - 263,000
Pathogenic Incinerator - 29,000 - - - - 29,000
Transfer System
Modifications - 319,000 - - - - 319,000
Purchase of Refuse
Department Equipment - 184.000 - - - - 184,000
Total Capital Improvements $140.000 $4.915,000 $ $5,055,000
TASK
IDENTIFY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
INITIATE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
PROJECT COST ANALYSIS
PREPARE FINAL DESIGN
LET SID FOR
WTERMEDIATE EXPANSION'
CONSTRUCT
'INTERMEDIATE EXPANSION'
OBTAIN PERMITS
ACOUIRE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY
OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION BIDS
SITE CONSTRUCTION
I YEAR
lose 1987 I
1988
MONTH
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
loolnn River County Urottory Lao011U Impl4tnent\tloll ache4ule
10
PIGURB 10-1
Mr. Hauser emphasized that time is running out and the
landfill will run out of space before the next segment is
designed. They are proposing to work with the DER to give the
county an interim program - possibly preparation.of a small
expansion area - while they permit and get the design done on the
entire expansion area. He then summarized their overall
recommendations, as follows:
1) Continue to utilize existing Landfill
a� Close existing cell
b) Expand site
C) Purchase additional land
d) Purchase new pit burner
e) Pathogenic incinerator
Z) Develop Convenience Collection Center
a) Convert existing transfer stations
b) Reorganize Refuse Department
3) Reevaluate Resource Recovery periodically
Chairman Scurlock expressed concern about disposing of
plastic items that last forever, and Mr. Hauser discussed the
possibility of mandatory separation as well as mandatory
collection and felt something can be built into the convenience
centers for separation.
Chairman Scurlock asked if they have identified what
percentage of residents have a present -collection service, and
also wished to know if we are making a place for any kind of item
to be deposited at the landfill, appliances, etc. Mr. Hauser
estimated that about 380 of the population uses the green
collection boxes, and Utilities Director Pinto advised that the
convenience centers will provide for the disposal of anything
other than hazardous waste.
Mr. Hauser continued to discuss resource recovery. He noted
that with the state of technology we have now, resource recovery
cannot take care of everything, and the county will continue to
have a large landfill requirement. He stressed that the existing
1 1 , �=t, `1
FEB 1987 euo� �� .1 s
FEB
2 b%
BOOP(
landfill
site is a very valuable resource, and felt the
key
is to
have an overall master plan of how the site will look 50 years
from now.
Commissioners Eggert and Bowman both spoke of receiving
complaints as to not enough screening of the landfill from 1-95.
Donald Munksgaard next came before the Board to review
Sludge Management and the Septage and Grease Management
Feasibility Study. He noted their job was to evaluate and
determine the impact of sludge production in the county and
identify and evaluate alternatives. The problem obviously is
only going to increase. He then discussed the alternatives for
disposal of sludge, and advised that the recommended plan would
involve thickening of the sludge at a subregional facility
through anaerobic digestion and then use of a belt filter press
to reduce the liquid volume after which the sludge cake would be
disposed of at the landfill. He advised the north subregional
facility to which they refer is the Gifford treatment plant.
Mr. Munksgaard then reviewed the Septage and Grease Manage-
ment Feasibility Study, noting that presently there are six
private haulers with mixed loads of septage and grease, and these
are disposed of at the landfill in a pit. Nitrates are a leading
factor in pollution of ground water, and although nothing has
shown up in the landfill monitoring wells so far, they would
recommend this practice be stopped as soon as possible. Mr.
Munksgaard advised that they are recommending a co -treatment
system with the sludge and summarized from their report as
follows:
Currently, there are estimated to be approximately 48,000 persons served by
roughly 12,200 septic tanks within the County. Although substantial
development is projected within the County during the next 15 years, the
vast majority of growth will be served by sanitary sewers. In addition,
existing septic tanks will be replaced by installation of new sewers.
Actual septage production within the County is thus projected to decrease
from the current. levels of 2.87 million gallons annually to 2.04 million
gallons by the Year 2000. The number of active grease traps, however, is
projected to increase in conjunction with development of the County.
Annual grease production is projected to grow from 0.7 million gallons in
1985 to 1.3 million gallons in Year 2000."
- 1-
Various sites, both existing and future potential sites, were identified
for a septage and grease waste management facility. Each site was
evaluated in terms of several criteria and then ranked. The Gifford/North
Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant site,was found to be the single most
favorable location for the facility.
For the receiving, treatment, and disposal of septage and grease wastes,
several alternative units and processes were discussed and evaluated. The
evaluation included both economic considerations and factors other than
costs. The recommended alternative is that the existing Gifford Wastewater
Treatment Plant be modified to be used as a receiving facility for mixed
loads of septage and grease. A grease concentrator would be installed for
removal of the grease component, and the grease would be trucked to the
County's sanitary landfill for disposal. The septage would be stabilized
and dewatered in the recommended solids treatment facilities of the North
Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Solid residuals would be hauled to
the County's sanitary landfill for disposal.
Disposal of treated septage and grease wastes is recommended to be within
the lined portion of the County's future landfill cell. Disposal of
treated septage will he in conjunction with the recommended disposal plan
for treated wastewater sludge. Grease will be disposed of in holes
excavated in the working face and covered by an adequate layer of waste
before compaction."
" 7.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED FACILITIES
Rased on the evaluations conducted within this report, it is recommended
that Indian River County take the necessary steps to implement Septage and
Grease Waste Management Alternative 1. This recommended alternative
consists of the following process units:
o A receiving facility located at the Gifford/North Subregional
Wastewater Treatment Plant -site. This alternative was selected
based on the ability to modify the existing Gifford wastewater
treatment facility. If such modifications are determined
structurally "unsound", a new receiving facility could be
constructed without changing the present worth ranking of the
recommended alternative.
o Grease concentration at the central receiving facility located at
the existing Gifford Wastewater Treatment Plant.
o Anaerobic digestion at the North Subregional Wastewater Treatment
Plant to he built on the existing Gifford site. It is the
recommendation of this report to blend the septage wastes into the '
13
FEB 2 1987 Boor 6 7 F yF 17
FEED 2 M87
BOOK 67 r.'�vr. � I/�
of solids train of the North Subregional facility. The benefit of
this technology is two -fold. First, by adding the waste into the
solids train of the wastewater facility, the associated 900 load
would not be exerted on the liquid treatment portion, thus
maintaining liquid plant capacity. Second, capital and operating
costs would be reduced due to economies of scale.
o Belt filter press dewatering at the North Subregional facility
along with its associated polymer conditioning.
o Disposal of sludge cake at the County landfill facility.
o Odor control equipment is also recommended to be provided. A "wet
I scrubber" type system, Is recommended. "
l_
Daniel Anderson came before the Board to make the presenta-
tion on the rate study and the finances involved. Mr. Anderson
informed the Board that the recommended method of cost recovery
is a combination of a user charge system levied upon properties
generating septage and/or grease wastes and an impact fee levied
upon new septic tanks and grease traps. The Solid waste System
Rate Study recommends:
`t,that the Sanitary Landfill
j Enterprise Fund be expanded and modified to be the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund. The expanded enterprise fund is intended to encompass: (1) the
landfill; (2) the five convenience centers; (3) the septage and grease
receiving facility; (4) thickened wastewater sludge receiving facility;
and, (5) the solids treatment facility at the Gifford North Subregional
Wastewater Treatment Plant along with the conveyance system of trucks used
to haul treated solids residuals and grease wastes to the landfill for
disposal. The fee structure must reflect the costs incurred on behalf of
the septage and grease wastes from the appropriate Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund components.'
Charts setting out the recommended cost recovery and
calculation of the surcharge are as follows:
14
r
TABLE ES -1
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COST RECOVERY
FOR SEPTAGE AND GREASE WASTE MANAGEMENT
Annual 1 Capital Cost
Customer Class User Charge Surcharge
Septic Tanks $ 6.80/septic tank $ 52.26/septic tank
Grease Traps 67.60/grease trap 250.00/grease trap
(1) For recovery of operation and maintenance expenses.
(2) For recovery of capital costs to provide environmentally acceptable
facilities for treatment and disposal of septage and grease wastes.
Applied to existing and future septic tanks and grease traps as a
one-time surcharge.
TABLE 7-2
CALCULATION OF THE SURCHARGE FOR SEPTAGE AND GREASE FACILITIES
Receiving Facility
Grease Concentration
Anaerobic Digestion
Polymer Conditioning
Belt Filter Press Dewatering
Dewatered Sludge Hauling
Odor Control
Subtotal
Allowance for Related Services,
Contingencies, and Inflation @ 30%
. Total Project Costs
Ultimate Number of Facilities
Designed for
Surcharge
1OT
-4'
Construction
P-+
$150,000
70%
$105,000
30%
$ 45,000
65,000
0
O
100
65,000
250,000
100
250,000
0
0
10,000
100
10,000
0
0
50,000
100
50,000
0
0
30,000
50
15,000
50
15,000
175,000
100
175,000
0
0
$730,000
$605,000
$125,000
219,000 .
181,500
37,500
$949,000
$'786,500
$162,500
15,050 septic tanks 650 grease traps
$52.2.6/septic tank $250.00/grease trap
FEB 2 197 15
BOOK
FEB 2 1987 BOOK
r.
Board members expressed great concern about the impact on
residents with existing septic tanks, and various alternatives,
were discussed at length, i.e., charging at time of first pump
out, an MSTU type of charge, possibly setting this up as a
utility, etc.
Discussion continued re the advantages and disadvantages of
different methods of recovery of the cost of the septage and
grease dumping. Mr. Anderson advised that they do not recommend
continuation of the tipping fee as it has been demonstrated that
this only encourages illegal activity.
Utilities Director Pinto felt it must be kept in mind that
to rid us of the problem we have now, we must make a major
expenditure, and it is all a matter of financing of the project;
there can be different methodologies for setting up the rate. He
emphasized that what we have to explore is what is the most
attractive way to attract bonding for this project, and a vital
factor in this is having a secure revenue stream.
Chairman Scurlock agreed the problem is how to pay for all
this and believed we will have to have a bond issue as we are
talking about five million to be generated before the first of
next year. He was concerned about how fast we can accomplish all
this to have a mechanism to sell bonds, and Mr. Anderson agreed
it is imperative to get moving on this very quickly. The steps
they recommend the county proceed with are:
1) Immediately retain a financial advisor to pursue additional
financing.
2) Hold workshops, public hearings, etc., and adopt the study
recommendations.
3) Issue a request for proposals to perform field work to do the
cataloging and to establish the entire accounting system.
4. Begin preparation of interlocal agreements between the county
and municipalities.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if Utilities is suggesting we
contract with someone to do all the cataloging that will be
required, and Director Pinto noted that he is suggesting that we
16
continue on with Camp, Dresser & McKee to help implement this
plan and bring it to reality.
Chairman Scurlock inquired if Camp, Dresser & McKee has
sufficient capability to do the cataloging, etc., and meet the
deadlines to get this done and issue bonds, and he was assured
they did.
Chairman Scurlock did not believe we have any choice but to
move ahead and take care of the future or it will take care of
US. He asked if any Commissioner was opposed to the general
approach we are taking, and there were no objections.
Utilities Director Pinto expressed his excitement about the
plan which he believed is equitable as a whole. He believed that
if we implement this, it will be a model that others will want to
follow.
There being no further business to come before the meeting,
on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned
at 12:15 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Clerk
NIV911w)W11r, 1.Chairman
17 BOOK 67 F,VIJE