7/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Scurlock asked if you could construe the term "appropriate franchise" to mean possibly the current franchise which we issue to anyone wanting to do business in the county. Attorney Vitunac stated that the problem was that the 179 Resolution was really a franchise without a term. It offered the county certain options for 7 years, after which there was going to be a new franchise, an extension, or an appropriate one, but there was nothing discussed in the original about the term. The Commission could give a standard 30 year franchise, but the utility has been so insistent on not having changes to its original Resolution, that we gave them seven years instead of 30. Commissioner Eggert inquired what the difference is between the amended and the current franchise we issue today. Mrs. Abernethy clarified that the current franchise we issue, they must escrow the water and sewer impact fees at the county's rates now. Commissioner Eggert wanted to know if we approved the recommendation, what the difference would be then, and Mrs. Abernethy advised the difference would be they would no longer escrow the impact money because of the option of a buy-out. Chairman Scurlock asked if there is a specific buy-out formula in the new franchise, and Director Pinto advised there is a specific formula as well as specific terms spelling out the relationship to the county system - who serves who, when and how. Chairman Scurlock asked if it still is a non-exclusive franchise, and Director Pinto confirmed that it is and the existing franchise is non-exclusive. This is our policy with all franchises. Commissioner Bird asked if the item before the Board today was initiated by the Utility Department to bring the franchise more in line, and Director Pinto stated that this was brought to the Board at the request of the Utility Department because of expiration of their existing franchise and also because of non compliance. 45 BOOK 68 PAGEA,( i