My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/8/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
9/8/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:28:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/08/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
O <br />SEP 1982 51 PAF ? �. 6 <br />number of people in a given service area and whether those <br />people are here or not, they should pay a pro rata share for <br />that readiness of service. <br />Administrator Wright was of the opinion that their <br />estimate of expenditures may be very conservative, <br />especially since we are taking over a number of small <br />systems and are continuing to run Ixora Utilities, probably <br />for a year. <br />Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that these rates only <br />take into account the number of people who will hook up the <br />day the system is on line. The capacity of the plant, <br />however, is such that it can serve additional.people, and if <br />we were using and selling more water, we'could meet our <br />obligations; there will be additional people who will hook <br />up relatively soon, and Commissioner Wodtke asked if finding <br />additional water users can be pursued. <br />Administrator Wright stated that they will be actively <br />pursuing as many as possible, and the estimate is for 60 <br />growth.. This is not considered in the base rates because <br />these people will not be on line October lst; also this does <br />not necessarily mean 6% more revenue as the new customers <br />will come on at different times. He then explained in <br />detail how actual consumption figures were applied to the <br />various rates. <br />Chairman Scurlock agreed that obviously if more <br />customers come on the system, it will be better, but even at <br />the 8 and 2 rate, we have a shortfall of $100,000. <br />Discussion then ensued on the roughly $350,000 of <br />impact fees collected to reserve capacity, which have not - <br />been taken into consideration, -and the feeling that those who <br />are reserving capacity and have this water locked up should <br />be billed. also. Mr. Baird explained that, according to the <br />County Ordinance, impact fees can only be used for certain <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.