My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/10/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
4/10/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:58:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/10/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
F, <br />APR 101990 <br />BOOK PAGE -805 <br />this is only 20,000 sq. ft. They feel the intent of the <br />ordinance was to equate different uses to the estimated <br />consumption of those uses. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are saying that <br />once the rate analysis is in, whatever the new classifications <br />are and how we address them will be applied to this. <br />Utilities Director Pinto clarified that he is saying that if <br />they choose to subdivide into 16 units prior to the completion of <br />the rate analysis, they would pay the 16 units. If there is a <br />rate change and they haven't finished their construction or <br />subdivided, then whatever that rate was, that is what they would <br />pay. That study should be completed in 90-120 days. <br />Attorney Henderson noted the problem this creates is that <br />the approximate construction cost of this single building is <br />around $450,000, and the difference in the impact fees they are <br />discussing is potentially $30,000 or 80 of the total, and that is <br />causing a problem in terms of the lender commitments that are <br />being sought. <br />Commissioner Bird commented that the exterior of the build- <br />ing doesn't change, but the interior is flexible. He can see <br />where the number of tenants in this building could change over <br />the years; so, why don't we just set what is reasonable to begin <br />with because he did not think we can keep going back in there_ and <br />changing every time that they reconfigure the inside. <br />Director Pinto noted that is exactly what we do; we have to. <br />Attorney Henderson stressed that he is just asking that the <br />county analyze consumption based on actual use. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked how that would enhance their <br />position with the lender. He pointed out that rate structure is <br />more than just usage. There are several fully acceptable stand- <br />ards for charging - meter size - square footage - consumption, <br />etc., and our consultant is looking at the broad base and coming <br />back to us with a recommendation. He did not know how we can <br />enter into an arrangement saying that no matter what they do, <br />16 <br />M <br />-I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.