My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/5/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
12/5/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:47 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:01:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/05/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
EC 5 1990 n) . 8? <br />oFADE io _ <br />an evaluation of the system in preparation for a potential <br />acquisition, indicating that we have no right to enter the <br />property. They have indicated to us that if the rights of the <br />franchise were assigned to the County, they would allow us to <br />proceed. He felt the best potential to acquiring the utility is <br />through the franchise agreement; so, whatever the Council can do <br />to convey some rights to us in terms of being able to get on <br />site, it would be appreciated. The attorneys can work that out, <br />but until we do that, CH2M Hill cannot get on site to make their <br />evaluation and we don't have any numbers to review. <br />Mr. McClary advised that a year and a half ago the County <br />reviewed their position on the franchise with GDU, which ultimately <br />is to make sure that Indian River County is the sole provider of <br />water and sewer within the corporate limits. The effect of that <br />is to put County staff in mode to sit down and attempt to negotiate <br />with GDU. Obviously, everyone had hoped that GDU would come to <br />the bargaining table with their sleeves rolled up and get the job <br />done, but that hasn't happened, and they are at a point where <br />they feel a bigger carrot and a longer stick is needed. He <br />explained that under the franchise agreement with GDU, the City <br />has the ability to assign the rights to the County. The <br />franchise agreement contains a clause that says the City can buy <br />out the system unilaterally, but the City prefers not to take an <br />active role in that process unless it is really necessary since <br />the ownership of GDU ultimately will go to the County. However, <br />we may be able to save some time and dollars by assigning the <br />franchise, or at least the City's rights within the franchise to <br />acquire. There are some provisions the City wants to retain as <br />long as GDU is operating. Mainly, they want to make sure that <br />the franchise fees, taxes and revenues keep coming in, and want <br />to continue regulating the rates. They understand that the <br />County isn't looking for any revenue, but just wants the opportunity <br />to get in there and force a sale, and they agree with that <br />position. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.