My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/22/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
1/22/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:07 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:05:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/22/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
Mr. Pitiak asked Attorney Vitunac if, in his professional <br />opinion, this would be a proper way to assess the cost in <br />acqut'ring a private utility, but Attorney Vitunac stated that he <br />would let Director Pinto answer that question as he is the expert <br />in acqu-isition. <br />Director Pinto believed that the failure of the document is <br />when they just say an appraiser. He felt that the review of the <br />utility by an engineering firm to see exactly what the assets are <br />is probably a better practice to follow. With regard to going <br />outside for professional services, those services can be done <br />in-house in many cases as Commissioner Scurlock has said. The <br />objection usually comes from whoever is selling the utility, <br />because they usually will want to go out and get their own <br />professionals to try to convince us that the facility is worth <br />more than we are willing to pay. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt the ultimate answer that Mr. <br />Pitiak is looking fords that the County will make an assessment <br />as to what we feel the value of that system is, and if it is not <br />in the best interests of our county to acquire it, and if the <br />price is higher than what we feel we should be paying for it, we <br />are not going to acquire it. That is what happened with GDU in <br />the south county, where the analysis we had done showed that the <br />system wasn't worth what GDU felt it was worth. Therefore, we <br />backed away and we are building our own system. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt that you will find that this <br />Commission, which ultimately makes the decision, isn't going to <br />pay more than what we feel is a fair value that is supported by <br />appraisals and engineering analyses. He noted that today's <br />action doesn't make any decision as to us actually acquiring the <br />utility._ It just.sets in motion us trying to exercise the <br />provisions of the franchise agreement that has been assigned to <br />us. The next step is to evaluate the facility, and if we cannot <br />come to something we feel is reasonable, then the Commission has <br />to make a decision. <br />Chairman Bird understood then that with the transfer of this <br />agreement to us, the County is bound to_using three appraisers <br />in the purchase of this utility, and Director Pinto explained <br />that the County is bound to it only.if the utility insists that <br />is the way they want it done. <br />Corrimissioner Scurlock explained that if they agree to take <br />the purchase price we are offering based on our analyses, we are <br />off to the races. If they say no, that they are exercising their <br />provision not to agree to it, we can just walk away and say that <br />we are not acquiring. <br />`3 6 . BOOK, FAGE�� d <br />� , 199 <br />L <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.