2/2/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 2 1987 BOOK r. Board members expressed great concern about the impact on residents with existing septic tanks, and various alternatives, were discussed at length, i.e., charging at time of first pump out, an MSTU type of charge, possibly setting this up as a utility, etc. Discussion continued re the advantages and disadvantages of different methods of recovery of the cost of the septage and grease dumping. Mr. Anderson advised that they do not recommend continuation of the tipping fee as it has been demonstrated that this only encourages illegal activity. Utilities Director Pinto felt it must be kept in mind that to rid us of the problem we have now, we must make a major expenditure, and it is all a matter of financing of the project; there can be different methodologies for setting up the rate. He emphasized that what we have to explore is what is the most attractive way to attract bonding for this project, and a vital factor in this is having a secure revenue stream. Chairman Scurlock agreed the problem is how to pay for all this and believed we will have to have a bond issue as we are talking about five million to be generated before the first of next year. He was concerned about how fast we can accomplish all this to have a mechanism to sell bonds, and Mr. Anderson agreed it is imperative to get moving on this very quickly. The steps they recommend the county proceed with are: 1) Immediately retain a financial advisor to pursue additional financing. 2) Hold workshops, public hearings, etc., and adopt the study recommendations. 3) Issue a request for proposals to perform field work to do the cataloging and to establish the entire accounting system. 4. Begin preparation of interlocal agreements between the county and municipalities. Chairman Scurlock inquired if Utilities is suggesting we contract with someone to do all the cataloging that will be required, and Director Pinto noted that he is suggesting that we 16