My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/18/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
8/18/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:39 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:20:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/18/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
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
_I <br />AUG 181982 Box 51 PAA E'102 <br />Administrator Wright discussed the historical years that <br />were taken into consideration in the Comparative Data and <br />pointed out that there were two unusual years. He noted <br />that there was a cut-back from the Water Management <br />District, as well as a very wet year; the data was very <br />sensitive. <br />Lengthy discussion followed, and it was felt that <br />perhaps the Finance Advisory Committee could get a good, <br />in-depth analysis and ultimately set a policy. <br />Mr. Robbins expressed concern about the Letter of <br />Conditions involved with the $2.7 million loan; as <br />approximately $426,000 was to be used to complete <br />construction of the South County water plant, as well as the <br />purchase of Treasure Coast Utilities & Ixora Utilities. He <br />felt it important to make sure there was a vehicle by which <br />the County could cover itself for the present construction <br />obligations. <br />Community Services Director Thomas thought that there <br />had been a lack of timing relative to the $2.7 million loan. <br />but the Board and the public, in that area, have indicated <br />they want a system on the South Beach; now the Board is <br />going from a FmHA type of bond to a public bond. He <br />discussed the bond requirements and advised that the bond <br />people have recommended a 1.2 coverage as opposed to a 1.1 <br />coverage. Mr. Thomas stated that the County is in the water <br />business, so the people are going to be demanding water; the <br />County will be better off if it could take care of this now <br />and cover the same requirement under the $7 million issue. <br />Mr. Thomas continued that at the time that. Mr. Robbins' firm <br />presented the final contract, there was a cost overrun of <br />$426,000 and the Board did two things;" One was to <br />facilitate the sale through a technicality that Mr. <br />Livingood pointed out, by pledging funds temporarily to <br />issue the bond anticipation note. The other thing was that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.