Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County commissioners move to closed session to negotiate water contract price
Summary
At a Daggett County Commission meeting, members debated contract pricing strategy and amortization terms for a water delivery agreement, then voted to enter a closed session to negotiate price and potential lease or purchase of water rights; no public vote tally was recorded.
Members of the Daggett County Commission discussed contract terms for a water-delivery agreement, raised questions about the financing formula and amortization schedule, and moved into a closed session to negotiate price and the possible lease or purchase of water rights.
Speaker 4 said the commission should “probably rather start a little lower than a 135 and move up with inflation” rather than begin at 135 and later reduce the figure, framing the negotiating posture for initial price levels. Commissioners asked staff to circulate red-lined edits and to have the draft ready for negotiation by the March 5 target date.
Speaker 2 pressed whether the commission would need a quick contract extension “in order to keep things alive” if they could not finish by March 5; Speaker 4 agreed it was prudent to have an extension document ready as a contingency. Several participants credited Patricia and Latrice for preparing the red-line draft and said they were close to a final document but would extend or hammer out remaining points if necessary.
The group also debated the financing formula used to develop the billing plan. Speaker 2 asked whether an annuity-due formula had been applied on a 40-year amortization schedule while the payment term was 25 years. Participants said that mismatch was a negotiation point and suggested staff should “run it at 25 years and see what that looks like” to compare effects on annual payments.
Speaker 5 proposed going into a closed session “and have some negotiation on on the price,” and Speaker 4 said, “So moved.” Speaker 5 stated the intended subject for the closed session as the “purchase [or] lease of real property, water being real property” and payment for delivery of water. That exchange prompted a brief disagreement over terminology: Speaker 1 said, “Water is not real property,” while Speaker 5 responded, “I was under the understanding that water rights are considered real property.”
The commission transitioned to a private connection to continue negotiations. The public record in the transcript ends with the group preparing to step out; no roll-call vote tally or formal public vote on the motion appears in the transcript excerpt.
