My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/2/1983
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1983
>
3/2/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:00 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:55:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/02/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
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
� MAR 2 1983 "f�vc90,3 <br />demonstrated to the Commission, and we went out on a limb to <br />try to provide this service. <br />Discussion continued at length regarding subdivisions <br />with existing systems and lines, some of which were never <br />cleared for service because no water taps were available, <br />and the fact that these must be pressure tested and brought <br />up to standards, which is not included in the impact fees. <br />It was felt our official policy should be written out and <br />made clear for the record. <br />Mr. Pinto felt it is very likely that it will not be <br />possible to bring some of the exisoting lines up to standards <br />and that new construction will have to take place. If we <br />reach that point, he felt the Utility Depament must handle <br />it. He recommended that in the meantime we move ahead with <br />Phase I, noting that we have the permit to build the project <br />with the understanding that the actual connections are not <br />part of this project and that any distribution system <br />connected must meet County standards. <br />Administrator Wright confirmed that we need to go ahead <br />and award the -bid, and Engineer Robbins reviewed the time <br />table involved with physically getting things constructed if <br />the bid'is awarded today. <br />Chairman Bird asked what would happen in the event we <br />did not go through with. Phase II, the sub -aqueous crossing, <br />and Attorney Brandenburg explained that we then would give <br />all improvements and the unused escrow funds to the City, <br />and they would pick up from there. <br />Question arose as to whether the people who connect <br />would have to pay the City connection fee, and Engineer <br />Robbins believed this is spelled out in the agreement. <br />49 <br />� r � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.