My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/28/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/28/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:22:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/28/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 />SAY _ <br />BOOK <br />Landfill fees seem high but are not because of the new closure <br />requirements which result in higher closure costs. He gave his <br />opinion that certainly the way the County has structured that <br />particular fund is going to be appropriate to match those costs <br />as you go forward. Mr. O'Keefe felt there is no real problem in <br />those, but asked the Board to flip to the back of the report on <br />Page 102 which is a Combining Balance Sheet for all of the County <br />Enterprise Funds. Page 102 shows total assets of these various <br />funds while page 104 shows liabilities and fund equities. All of <br />these Enterprise Funds except the Golf Course show positive <br />retained earnings. Mr. O'Keefe pointed out that the Golf Course <br />was basically designed to run into a loss situation in its early <br />years of operation. It has now turned the corner and is starting <br />to make a profit. He understood that the County is going for the <br />second phase of the golf course, and believed it is probably a <br />good time to do that. He believed the County's approach which <br />first concentrated on the course itself rather than having a <br />large clubhouse was what resulted in the revenue producing asset. <br />Page 106 shows the income of the Golf Course this year as <br />$84,437, and Mr. O'Keefe felt the County certainly is on the <br />right track. As to the Solid Waste Disposal District, Mr. <br />O'Keefe cautioned that there are some regulatory requirements for <br />maintenance and closure costs which will have an impact on this <br />fund. <br />Commissioner Scurlock agreed that one of the problems is <br />trying to manage that system and "guesstimate" your closure <br />costs. He confirmed that new requirements of the DER escalated <br />costs of the closure of the first cell considerably over what we <br />had estimated (about $600,000), and although we did negotiate <br />that back some, Commissioner Scurlock felt that shows you the <br />magnitude of what can happen here; so, he did not think you can <br />have too much money when you get to the point of starting to <br />close a Landfill. <br />Mr. O'Keefe stressed the importance of keeping engineering <br />reports updated and current. <br />Commissioner Scurlock inquired about bond coverage on our <br />Enterprise Funds. <br />Mr. O'Keefe directed the Board to the statistical section <br />and referred to Tables 10, 11 and 12, which show your revenue <br />bond coverage ratios for the Sanitary Landfill, Water and Sewer <br />Bonds, and the Golf Course, as follows: <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.