My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/26/1988
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1988
>
7/26/1988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:00:11 PM
Creation date
6/12/2015 2:23:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/26/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- <br />sioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Shorelands <br />Development Company's request for two streetlights <br />contingent on the conditions recommended by staff, and <br />authorized the Chairman to sign the necessary documents. <br />(Amendment to Master Street light Agreement and Agreement <br />between County& Shorelands will be made a part of the <br />record when fully executed and received.) <br />ADDED ITEM - DISCUSSION REACQUISITION OF NORTH BEACH WATER CO. <br />Chairman Scurlock requested that an item be added to the <br />agenda for discussion of the acquisition of North Beach Water <br />Company as he wished to clarify that a bit and give an update. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis- <br />sioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above <br />item to the agenda as requested by the Chairman. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that basically the utility staff and <br />Mr. Baird came before the Board requesting signature on an <br />acquisition document, which document basically approved acquiring <br />North Beach utilities for approximately 3.1 million. The funding <br />mechanism within that agreement was very much contingent upon <br />financing. The proposal at the time was for a $13.00 a month <br />surcharge which would, in fact, fund the acquisition. The <br />Chairman explained why they tried to work around the $13 figure <br />is that basically was the difference between their existing <br />charges and bringing them onto the existing county rate, and it <br />would give the residents the opportunity to come on the county <br />system with very little, if any, change in their rate structure. <br />The Chairman continued that at the time we ran those <br />numbers, it was apparent that the $13.00 possibly would work. <br />61 BOOK 7 rmu-F 3® 7 <br />JUL 2 � 1988 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.