Laserfiche WebLink
� 1 <br />MAR 3 1982 <br />Mr. Fancher noted that as the development grows, there <br />will be a substantial amount of subcontracting done by local <br />contractors, and also as the new facility expands, there <br />will be a need to have a line crew involved for the on-going <br />maintenance. <br />In further discussion, Commissioner Lyons felt that <br />General Development does fulfill a need in providing the <br />Countv with medium cost housing. Commissioner Wodtke <br />concurred and noted that General Development does have a <br />fine track record. His main concern was effectively <br />providing controls in the documents to be able to trace <br />these dollars to make sure they are not utilized for any <br />purpose other than expansion of this particular water and <br />sewer system. <br />Mr. Fancher stated they intend to trace the funds to <br />individual work orders to relate to work done in the <br />specific areas we are talking about, and it will not be a <br />pool of funds concept. He informed the Board that the key <br />to their moving ahead with their project and maintaining the <br />tax exempt status is for the Commission to approve the <br />Inducement Resolution, after which they still would have to <br />place the bonds. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that the present franchise does <br />not have any requirement for a franchise fee, which would <br />help alleviate the burden placed on the county for the <br />monitoring of the franchise operation, etc. <br />Mr. Fancher stated that General Development Utilities <br />would be willing to enter into a franchise fee. <br />Attorney Patricia Wheeler took the floor. She <br />commented that under federal law the specific issue as to <br />whether or not the corporation may invest the funds in <br />arbitrage earnings must be taken into consideration and <br />anything earned must go into the project. If any funds are <br />left over, they must be used to retire the bonds; there will <br />44 <br />