My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/23/1977
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1977
>
5/23/1977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 8:44:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/23/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
COMMISSIONER Loy SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY GO ON A WHOLESALE <br />'ASIS AND HIRE THE CITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE BILLING FOR US. <br />MR. LITTLE AGREED IF THE COUNTY TAKES WHOLESALE SERVICE AT THE <br />PLANT, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT COULD BE ARRANGED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE <br />CITY FOR THE CITY TO BILL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM. HE NOTED A <br />CHARGE WOULD HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATED FOR BILLING AND METER READING, ETC. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THE COUNTY COULD.ACCEPT THE SERVICE UNDER <br />THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT AND THEN GIVE THE CITY PERMISSION TO BILL. <br />CITY MANAGER LITTLE STATED THAT THE CITY WOULD BILL THE COUNTY, <br />WHO WOULD BE THE CUSTOMER, AND THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN INTERLOCAL <br />AGREEMENT ABOUT BILLING THE INDIVIDUALS, I.E., THE CITY WOULD COLLECT THE <br />REVENUES UNDER THE RATES THE COUNTY WOULD WORK UP, AND WOULD REMIT A CHECK <br />TO THE COUNTY EACH MONTH SHOWING THE NET REVENUES COLLECTED LESS THE WHOLE— <br />SALE CHARGES AND LESS MANAGEMENT COSTS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO PASS APPRO— <br />PRIATE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING RATES — PROCEDURES — FUNCTIONS, ETC. <br />COUNCILMAN S _URLOCK INFORMED THEE- Btl1 a TMAT, WHA HE&i EN.V—:JS UQAIS_ I.& <br />ONE SYSTEM IN REGION 2 SUPPORTED BY THE CUSTOMERS.AND HAVING THE SAME RATE <br />STRUCTURE AND TAP—ON FEES FOR CITY AND COUNTY CUSTOMERS. HE POINTED OUT <br />THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE BUILT HOUSES AND PUT IN SEPTIC TANKS, KNOWING FULL <br />WELL THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO TAP—ON TO THE CITY SYSTEM. HE NOTED <br />THAT THE ENTIRE BEACH SYSTEM HAS BEEN IMPACTED WITH EACH.PHASE.AND STATED <br />HE DOES NOT FEEL IT MAKES ANY SENSE TO CONTINUE LOOKING AT THE TRIPARTITE <br />AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A POOR DOCUMENT. COUNCILMAN SCURLOCK THEN REFERRED <br />BACK TO THE GRANT MONEY WHICH ENABLED THE CITY TO EXPAND THEIR CAPACITY <br />AND SAID HE DOESN'T SEE WHERE IT NECESSARILY RELATES TO A TAP—ON FEE AS <br />THIS FEE IS USED TO BENEFIT THE SYSTEM AND, THEREFORE, THE CUSTOMERS. THE <br />CITY DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM IT. HE REITERATED THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE <br />TO HAVE TWO SYSTEMS IN REGION 2. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE NOTED THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED THE <br />GRANT MONEY IF THE AREA THEY WERE GOING TO SERVICE DID NOT INCLUDE SOME OF <br />THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. <br />COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT CITY CUSTOMERS COULD ALSO SAY <br />FHEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY TAP—IN FEES BECAUSE THE COUNTY GOT A GRANT. <br />5 <br />Y 2 31977 suet . 29 .455 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.