Remarks by Cathey Rusing
222 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 8 of 9
5,000 tons? Correct. Wow. That's a lot of recycling. Okay, any comments from the public?
Okay. Any comments? Jay, do you have another comment? Okay. All righty. Ted?
Pass the 7-0. Thank you. It's about 5 o'clock. I think we should take about a 10-minute break, stretch our legs, and then we'll continue with the rest of the agenda. Thank you.
Well, thank you. This is moving along. It's been a long time coming to this point. I have a few questions. First of all, I'd like to ask legal about this contract. I understand that you reviewed it, but you didn't negotiate it. Is that right?
Okay. So we just don't negotiate any of these public works contracts? That's just the rule of thumb?
Okay. Thank you. Fan contracting has been around for a long time, local. They employ about 300 people. They serve northern Arizona. They've done a nice job in the past. They built our terminal. I remember when they redid Park Avenue, Copper Basin. We've had a long relationship with them. They have a wonderful reputation. I have a question on the contract. The signature line for fan contracting is blank. It doesn't have a name. Who's the principal now for fan contracting that is going to be?
Yeah, I was just curious. So it's Jason? Yeah. Okay, thank you. One of my concerns was the contract didn't have an exhibit that included the Kimley Horn plans that said option 2C, alternate plan 2C. And if we're going to have a contract, I think it's important that we include, because it says nowhere in the CMAR, which design we're gonna work with. And so, I think I would feel a lot better and it would be a lot clearer for the scope of the design if we included something as an exhibit that's narrowed it down to 2C.
So it's irrelevant whether it's alternate plan 2C or one of the other 20?
Well, I didn't know that. And I think just for members of the public and for the record, I think it would be nice if we included something that said this is the design that you're heading towards.
And then... About the sewer design, please refresh my memory. We're going to have one treated affluent line that's going to go from the airport wastewater treatment plant south to serve Prescott Lakes Golf Course.
Do you have any ideas what those other obligations would be?
So the affluent somehow heads south through Prescott Lakes and then goes back up?
And then we're going to have a line for raw sewage that's gonna go north to the wastewater treatment plant at the airport. That is correct, yes. And then is there, there's gonna be a third line, I seem to remember a third line, just two lines.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Let's see, who's next? Mary Fredrickson.
Thank you. I'd like to make some comments, too, about the exclusions. Instead of having numbers, there's bullet points starting on page 617 and going to 618. There's 18 exclusions. And the second bullet point from the top says design and engineering services. Isn't this going to be a design, they're consulting on design and engineering?
And then I understand all the other exclusions, but then we get down to insurance. They've got insurance as an exclusion, but then they have a big, you know, we have a page that covers insurance. Is that a mistake?
Does anybody have a comment? Gwen, is there someone from FAN here?
Yeah, because that's a pretty big issue. What's the question? Well, if you look at page 618 of the contract, the very third page from the end, under exclusions, it says insurance is one of the exclusions. So I was confused about that because there's a big discussion here.
So there's insurance in the contract, but then it says here that insurance is excluded. So I think we need to clear that up because insurance is very important. I'll make sure that happens. And that does bring me to the insurance question on page 32, paragraph 9. You know, insurance is very important, and you can never have enough insurance. And it seems to me like it's... pretty, pretty minimal. It talks about just like million dollar coverage. And, you know, I think I have more coverage for my home and auto and it talks about minimum. And then also it says they may have an umbrella, a…
I understand that, but if the design is faulty, there's a lawsuit you know that's what they go after was it the construction faulty or was the construction faulty because it was based on a faulty design so I'm just saying from just my gut feeling I'd like to see the insurance aggregates everything increased to more of a maximum coverage and throw in that umbrella for liability
I don't know. I would like to find out what the maximum is, because like I said, from experience, you cannot have enough insurance, especially this is a pretty big ticket item that we're dealing with.
Minimum. But my question is, can we go above the minimum?
Okay. Thank you. Anyway, any other comments?
I wasn't going to postpone it. I was just trying to get some information and make sure that we have as much liability covered as we can. Thank you so much. Let's see. Any other speakers? Lois? No. Okay.