Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION 21 <br />Commissioner Scurlock suggested, with concurrence of Attorney <br />Collins, that fees for inspection should be borne entirely by <br />Hutchinson. Administrator Nelson suggested a reasonable time for <br />review was approximately one to two days of staff time. The in- <br />spection should occur the same time each year. Mr. Nelson sug- <br />gested his office could perform the review within two weeks before <br />or after the anniversary date of the adoption of the Franchise and <br />would give Hutchinson a minimum of 24 hours' notice. <br />SECTIONS 23 and 24 <br />Attorney Collins suggested that, in the event the County term- <br />inates "for cause or not for cause" the County should not pay intan- <br />gible items (such as customer list or lost profits). Commissioner <br />Scurlock suggested a formula should be included in the Franchise for <br />the purchase of all facilities, including land, in the event of term- <br />ination. He discussed two methods: 1. replacement cost, less de- <br />preciation or, 2. an independent appraiser selected by the County <br />and Hutchinson to value all facilities and the land. The decision of <br />the independent appraiser would be binding. Attorney Collins con- <br />curred with the latter method. <br />Dorothy A. Hudson <br />August 19, 1981 <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO HOW CONTIGUOUS AN AREA REQUESTING <br />SERVICE WOULD HAVE TO BE, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED <br />ACCORDING TO THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS REVIEWED THE ESCROW PROVISION EXPLAINING <br />THAT FROM THE OUTSET THERE IS NO MONEY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, BUT <br />AS RATES COME IN,10% GOES INTO AN ESCROW ACCOUNT UNTIL IT BUILDS UP <br />TO $20,000. HE THEN EXPLAINED THE NEED FOR A UNILATERAL ACCOUNT WHICH <br />WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TO USE THESE FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE, ETC., IF THE <br />FRANCHISE HOLDER AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE DID NOT TAKE CARE OF ANY DE- <br />FICIENCIES. <br />THE BOARD THEN DISCUSSED THE PROVISION FOR ANNUAL INSPECTION, <br />THE COST OF SUCH INSPECTION, ETC, <br />THE CHAIRMAN RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHY WE GO TO A THIRD PARTY <br />AT ALL WHEN THE COUNTY IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING INTO THE SEWER <br />BUSINESS AND IT SEEMS WE.GENERALLY END UP WITH THE SYSTEM SOONER OR <br />LATER AND INHERIT ALL THE PROBLEMS. <br />73 <br />bom 47FA f <br />