My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/26/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
11/26/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:06:10 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 9:11:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/26/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion <br />failed 1-4, with Commissioners Adams, Eggert, Macht <br />and Tippin against. <br />Gene Winne, 2096 Windward Way, Vice President/Board of <br />Directors of the Civic Association, advised his background was in <br />the chemical and plastics industry and investment banking. He <br />wished to make it clear that he was a recycling advocate. While he <br />commended Mr. Knigin for the innovative project, he was concerned <br />about the project's feasibility because of the present soft market <br />in the recycling industry. <br />Mr. Winne asked Mr. Knigin to answer numerous questions as <br />follows: Which entities will be actually owned by INRIVCO vs those <br />to be operated by customers for various recycle streams? What is <br />INRIVCO's estimated total investment and capital structure, <br />particularly debt vs equity requirements? Who are the actual <br />partners with legal and financial responsibility to the County, <br />apart from the various obviously high-grade contractor/ associates? <br />Aside from spoken assurances, what guarantees does the County have <br />that the project will be successful? What are the total revenues <br />anticipated from product sales and leasing vs County tipping fees <br />of $4-5 million per year? Is it really practical to contract out <br />to 40 years with a fixed pricing formula, knowing that many <br />underlying factors can change radically with passage of time? <br />Mr. Winne realized that the answers to some of the questions <br />got into confidential data, but stressed that the Board carries a <br />heavy responsibility in committing to the project and they need to <br />feel confidence that it can succeed. <br />In summary, Mr. Winne suggested three separate yet overlapping <br />goals that need specific evaluation: 1) The political need to <br />recycle; 2) The optimum/ economical method to recycle and extend the <br />landfill capacity; and 3) The creation of new jobs and enhancement <br />of our economy. He hoped it would be possible for all to work <br />together to proceed toward an early mutually beneficial conclusion. <br />Louis Schlitt, speaking on behalf of himself and a member of <br />the Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee, stressed that we <br />should not lose sight of the objective but should focus on the <br />uniqueness and quality of what many people want to have. From his <br />real estate experience, he maintained that a contract is essential <br />before you can negotiate. When people back out, it does not <br />necessarily mean doom, but may be just an opportunity for someone <br />else to build on. He maintained we have a good group of people and <br />they should be given a chance to prove themselves. <br />31 <br />November 26, 1996 <br />BOOK 99 Fac, 951 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.