My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01095
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01095
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:58 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:49:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/5/1979
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
218
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />In the past, the staff has taken a number of <br /> <br />factors into account in arriving at the recommended service <br /> <br />charge. I will not reiterate those here. They are in your <br /> <br />folders under Agenda Item 3. <br /> <br />While we have gone to the effort to evaluate <br /> <br />those factors, and that evaluation has been explicit, the <br /> <br />procedure for weighing and comparing those factors has not <br /> <br />been pursuant to explicit criteria. Thus we sat down to <br /> <br />examine what we might do to improve that process to ensure <br /> <br />that it is at no time arbitrary and capricious. We <br /> <br />examined essentially four alternatives - the formal process <br /> <br />of evaluation, which is rather judgmental on the part of <br /> <br />the staff, and, secondly, we looked at the possibility of <br /> <br />developing a numerical rating system which would ensure <br /> <br />that the relevant factors were rated in a consistent manner <br /> <br />as we moved from project to project. <br /> <br />Thirdly, we examined the alternative of adopting <br /> <br />a single service charge, for example, four percent, which <br /> <br />would be applied to all projects regardless of, number one, <br /> <br />the project purpose and regardless, number two, of the <br /> <br />evaluation of any of these factors; and the fourth and final <br /> <br />alternative which we examined would be a service charge <br /> <br />which varied by project purpose; for example, three percent <br /> <br />CHARLINE K. SCOGGIN <br /> <br />CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER <br />2455 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AVENUE <br />BOULDER, COLORADO 60302 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.