My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/4/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
4/4/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:04:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/04/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
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
ATTORNEY COLLINS DISCUSSED UPDATING OF FRANCHISES AND THE <br />MORATORIUM ON ISSUING OF SEWER AND WATER FRANCHISES, WHICH IS DUE TO <br />EXPIRE ON THE 10TH OF APRIL. HE THEN REVIEWED A DRAFT OF THE REVISED <br />FRANCHISE FORM WHICH HE AND MR. BEINDORF HAVE WORKED OUT. THE ATTORNEY <br />STATED THEY HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONS AIMED TOWARDS UPGRADING THE <br />PROCESS AND HOPEFULLY TIGHTENING UP SOME OF THE WEAK AREAS. HE FELT THE <br />MOST IMPORTANT MATTER IS TO COORDINATE THE FRANCHISES WITH OUR LONG- <br />RANGE PLANS, ATTORNEY COLLINS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED FRANCHISE FORM AND <br />STATED HE HAS RECEIVED A SUGGESTION THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD WARRANT IN <br />THE FRANCHISE RESOLUTION, THEY WILL NOT TIE ON ADDITIONAL PARTIES UNTIL <br />SUCH TIME AS THEY HAVE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY. <br />THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT THEY WILL TRY•TO IMPROVE THE <br />DEFINITION OF A WATER PLANT SO THAT IT IS MORE DISTINCTLY SEPARATED FROM <br />THE DISTRIBUTION LINES, ETC., THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE TAKING OVER, THEY <br />ARE GOING TO TRY TO HAVE SOME COORDINATION BETWEEN FRANCHISES THAT ARE <br />CURRENT AND THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE DONE SO THERE WON'T BE ANY <br />INFRINGEMENT ON EITHER PARTY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE BIGGEST HURDLE TO OVERCOME <br />IS TO ASSURE THE COUNTY THAT THE APPLICANTS IN THE FUTURE WILL MAINTAIN <br />THE SYSTEM AND KEEP IT UP TO CERTAIN STANDARDS. THIS IS OUR BIGGEST <br />PROBLEM NOW, AND THE ATTORNEY FELT THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT <br />WON T CONTINUE. HE SUGGESTED, AS ONE SOLUTION, A PERFORMANCE BOND WHICH <br />WOULD INCLUDE ASSURANCES OF QUALITY AND MAINTENANCE AND WOULD BE IN <br />EFFECT AS LONG AS THE FRANCHISE IS IN EFFECT, AND NOTED THAT IT WOULD. <br />BE PREFERABLE TO REQUIRE A CASH BOND SO THE COUNTY WOULDN'T BE IN THE <br />POSITION OF HAVING TO SUE A SURETY. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WOULD BE TO <br />REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PUT THE TAP -ON FEES IN A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND <br />ALSO GIVE THE COUNTY SOME AUTHORITY, IN THE EVENT MAINTENANCE IS NOT KEPT <br />AT THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL, TO USE THOSE DEPOSIT FUNDS TO TAKE ACTION TO <br />BRING THE SYSTEM UP TO GRADE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE DRAWBACK <br />TO THIS IS THAT YOU DON T THEN HAVE THE TAP -ON FEES ON DEPOSIT WHEN YOU <br />GO TO HOOK INTO THE MASTER SYSTEM, BUT IT IS A VEHICLE TO GET FUNDING. <br />HE FELT THE PRIME EMPHASIS WOULD BE ON THE PERFORMANCE BOND. THE <br />ATTORNEY NEXT DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF•CARRYING OUT THE REGULATIONS. <br />Bou 39 PAGE 382 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.