My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/11/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
7/11/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:01:02 PM
Creation date
6/15/2015 4:40:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/11/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the acquisition of a <br />facility with such a low customer base, and Director Pinto <br />emphasized that the primary concern is the consolidation of all <br />the systems up there. <br />Commissioner Bird felt that the agreement needs to be <br />elaborated on, because as it reads now, it makes it sound like <br />there are only 80 customers in the system when there is a <br />potential 650 customers in the system. He felt that should be <br />spelled out in the agreement. Further, the purchase price should <br />read "up to $777,000." <br />Director Pinto explained that the agreement sets that out <br />very specifically. <br />Commissioner Eggert couldn't understand why staff's <br />recommendation, as set out in the above memo, is asking for <br />"conceptual" approval of the purchase agreement, and Director <br />Pinto stated that they are not asking for conceptual approval <br />because the purchase price is $10.00 per month per unit for 10 <br />years, not to exceed $777,000. That is what the purchase price <br />is, and that is how the agreement is written. <br />Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that staff is not looking <br />for conceptual approval for these two items today. They are <br />looking for approval to purchase the system and adoption of an <br />ordinance establishing the surcharge. <br />Attorney Vitunac felt that what the memo meant was that <br />staff wants the Board's approval subject to the public hearing <br />and someone in the audience saying otherwise. What is being <br />requested is the Board's authority to sign this agreement and <br />have a closing at the end of this month. <br />Commissioner Bird was also concerned that the owner of the <br />facility would be getting a free ride when it came to impact <br />fees, but Director Pinto and Commissioner Scurlock assured him <br />that was not the case, and that all impact fees would be paid at <br />the appropriate time. <br />J U L 111989 30 mox 77 <br />f'Acr X90 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.