Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />20 <br />1 One, he objected to the project manager. <br />2 Two, he thought the road construction was overdesigned <br />3 and overvalued. And three, that there could be a <br />4 chance of off -site impacts at the property as it exists <br />5 now. <br />6 MR. CATTANY: But your jurisdiction <br />7 would be over two and three, right? <br />8 MR. AUSTIN: I hesitate to speculate on <br />9 that, to be perfectly honest. Certainly we have <br />10 nothing to do with the project manager selection. As I <br />11 indicated, the funding is from a source that we don't <br />12 have any involvement with. So I'm not sure we'd be <br />13 involved there either. Mitch has gone down and just <br />14 reviewed our process for determining off -site impacts, <br />15 and that's an ongoing study that well conclude here by <br />16 the end of September for all the bond forfeiture sites <br />17 in the state as well as GEC. <br />18 MR. STARNER: This is a discussion item. <br />19 Mr. Corley, do you have any further comment? <br />20 MR. CORLEY: No, sir. <br />21 MR. STARNER: Anybody else have any <br />22 further comments on it? Guess well have to -- it's <br />23 our position, then, that were very glad to hear the <br />24 discussion on it. If there's ever a formal complaint <br />25 brought to our board, then it'll have to be addressed <br />