Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout69-1610~ Q SU ~~:~ °~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .,~: .gyn. ~~t r ~; COUNTY O>- BWTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. •~. :,; ,. .. ~ " Resolufion No. 6g-16?-; RESOLUTION ABANDONING COUNTY HIGHWAYS This matter came on regularly for hearing before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California on Tuesday, the 30th day of September, 1969, at 7:30 p.m., of said day in the Supervisors' room of the Butte County Courthouse fronting on Huntoon Street, in Oroville, Butte County, California, and it appearing to said board that a Notice of Intention and Resolution to Abandon County Highway and Notice of Time and Place of Hearing of said abandonment was duly and regularly given as required by law, and testimony and evidence, both oral and documentary, having been produced at said hearing, from which said Board now finds that the hereinafter described County Highways are unnecessary for present and prospective use; NOW, THEREFORE,- IT IS HEREBY ORDERE]]_as follows:. 1. That the County Highways situate in the County of Butte, State of California, as hereinafter more particularly described, are hereby abandoned. 2. That the description of said County Highways so abandoned are situate in the Town of Nelson, County of Butte, State of California, as shown on the map recorded in Book One of Maps, at Page 58, in the office of the Recorder, County of Butte, and are described as follows: ,West Street from the N.W. corner Block 5 North to North Street. ~1Vorth. Street from West Street East to the Midway. Sutter Street from 111 Street North to North Street. ~~Colusa Street from West Street East to Sacramento Street, then from Sacramento Street East to the Midway. J Antelope Street from West Street East to Sacramento Street, then from Sacramento Street East to the Midway. S aMil1 Street from West Street East to Sacramento Street. ~ ::a All alleys in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15 and 16. ~ooK1.5~3C Pac~~94 3. That the Clerk of this Board shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution, with the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, this 30th day of September, 19b9, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Daz~away~ Howsden~ Maxon Reynolds Chairman McKtllop NOES: None ABSENT: None r M L irman o e B, to County Board of Supervisors C1ar1c A. Nelson, County Clerk ~~ and' ex-officio Clerk of the Boar of Supervisors a. ~~ ~s9~~ -- BUTTE CQU~7Y~CA jE RECG'a;, f ~QUcS1cD BY pct 3 1~ 2a ~M I~~~ to~ts~ ~~~~~~~~ ~©U~17: RrEal;:JER ~: ~r~e..e._, FrE e~oK1586 PacE495 International Business Machines Corporation 520 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95874 916/444-5840 September 23, 1969 Mr. Daniel V. Blackstock County Counsel Butte County Oraville, California G i« ..~~ Dear Mr. Blackstock: This letter is to clarify IBM's policy with respect to three questions you had regarding IBM's Maintenance Agreement Contract. These questions were: 1. IBM's policy with respect to withdrawing maintenance from any of its equipment. 2. IBM's policy with respect to maintenance price changes. 3. IBM's policy with respect to travel expenses incurred while in route to the County's service location. While it states in the maintenance contract that IBM or the customer may withdraw any machine from the agreement at the end of the first year or thereafter by one month's prior written notice, it certainly is not IBM's policy or intent to deny a customer maintenance of IBM equipment. As final judgement in a United States Government Anti-Trust action against IBM, IBM agreed on .Tanuary 25, 1956, to conduct its business under the terms of a consent decree. Tn this decree IBM agreed to render repair and maintenance service at reason- able and non-discriminatory prices for owners of purchased IBM data processing equipment. Therefore, as long as IBM is in the business of marketing data processing equipment it must provide maintenance service to its customers. The intent of this one month cancellation clause is to allow IBM or the customer to unbind itself from the contract if a machine receives such catastrophic destruction or deterioration that its use was rendered impracticable. In any event, at the customer's request, IBM would still continue~to provide him with maintenance service on a per-call basis. The County would then in no way be exposed to a situation in which maintenance on IBM machines was unavailable. Mr. Daniel V. Blackstock County Counsel -2- September 23, 1969 In reference to IBM's policy with regard to price changes of its maintenance services, the contract states that~all prices are subject to change by three months' prior written notice. Although we cannot warrant a constant maintenance charge, it certainly is not IBM's policy to have frequent price changes. Looking over the past five years, IBM has not had a history of price changing. In fact, to my knowledge, these prices for maintenance have changed only twice during this period and one of these was a price reduction--one of which no customer complained. In any event. with one month's prior notice, the County could cancel its maintenance agree- ments and return to per-call maintenance if it felt the maintenance agreement charges were excessive. It is IBM's policy to incur all travel expenses of its per- sonnel to the customer's location when it is a reasonable distance from an IBM facility. The contract states this reasonable distance to be 15 air. miles from the nearest IBM facility, This policy also exists for our rental customers. To my knowledge, Butte County has never in the past been charged for travel. expenses in excess of 15 miles while traveling to Butte County from our Chicn Office. I see no reason to believe that we would change our policy when Butte County became a purchased customer. It is any hope that this clarifies IBM's policy in these areas. V tr yours, Christian Giguiere Marketing Representative CRG/amw