My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes 12/20/1973
City-of-Martinsville
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1973
>
Minutes 12/20/1973
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2006 10:02:43 AM
Creation date
12/15/2006 10:02:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
12/20/1973
City Council - Category
Minutes
City Council - Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />20 <br /> <br />THURSDAY <br /> <br />DECEMBER 20, 1973 <br /> <br />~ .-.--, <br /> <br />County in relationship to the capacity needed, and especially there was provision for <br /> <br />purchase by the County of the privilege to use a portion of the capacity of the existing <br /> <br />plant. This approach was to determine the total value of the existing plant, including <br /> <br />Debt Service, the relationship of that total value to each 1,000 gallons of waste to <br /> <br />be treated, with the resultant calculation indicating the sum of $494.49 per 1,000 <br /> <br />gallons. Then, this unit cost would be applied to the amount of capacity needed by <br /> <br />the County, on a "pay as you go" basis. For example, the present average volume of <br /> <br />,....-..... <br /> <br />waste treated for the County is approximately 82,000 gallons per day, which would result <br /> <br />in a first year pay-in by the County in the amount of $40,548.18, with subsequent <br /> <br />annual payments to be similarly calculated as treatment volumes increase. After <br /> <br />some discussion of this proposal, Council, on motion duly made and seconded, <br /> <br />approved the concept as outlined. <br /> <br />At this point there were questions by the County as to whether this position represented <br /> <br />an ultimatum, but Council stated that this official action constitutes an official <br /> <br />guideline for the City's negotiator. Council stressed that the City could not set <br /> <br />aside, in perpeturity, a portion of the plant, through designation of plant capacity, <br /> <br />because it is an asset which has been bought by its citizens, without recompense. <br /> <br />The two governing bodies requested the respective negotiators to come in with a joint <br /> <br />proposal by January 8, or by January 14, as the very latest date. <br /> <br />The meeting was adjourned. <br /> <br />,,/ g /;:;C(4~1- <br /> <br />T. B. Noland, Acting Cler <br /> <br />/1 <br />/ <br /> <br /> <br />of Council <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.