Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />JULY 26, 1983 <br /> <br />The sub-committee also identified the following major dis- <br />advantages: <br /> <br />1. The difference in school debt: <br /> <br />a. The County owes $5,282,800 (if the new <br />school is built, the debt would be $16,032,800). <br /> <br />b. The City owes $928,600. <br /> <br />2. The difference in money spent for salaries: <br /> <br />a. The County would spend $1,192,902 more <br />per year. <br /> <br />b. The City would spend $44,723 more per <br />year. <br /> <br />The sub-committee stated that in time the two systems should <br />be merged. <br /> <br />D. Recreation <br /> <br />The sub-committe stated that the major advantage would be <br />improved services through a coordinated program (more <br />beneficial to the children). <br /> <br />The City spends more money per person than does the County. <br />This difference would have to be resolved. <br /> <br />E. Utilities and Roads includes water, sewer, solid waste, electri- <br />city, building maintenance, land use, inspection and street and <br />highway maintenance. <br /> <br />The sub-committee concluded that the citizens could be served <br />better at a lower cost through merger. No major disadvantages <br />were pointed out. <br /> <br />The Merger Study Committee concluded that there are many positive <br />benefits that can accrue from merger. <br /> <br />The Committee recommended that a Consolidation Agreement be <br />developed and that a Timetable of Events be adopted. <br /> <br />The Merger Study Committee submitted its closing report on June 28, <br />1982. <br /> <br />II. Consolidation Agreement <br /> <br />After consideration of the Merger Study Committee's recommendations, <br />the County and City governing bodies appointed a committee to draw <br />up a Consolidation Agreement. The Committee consisted of the County <br /> <br />-1 ~l <br />. J! <br />