My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/28/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
4/28/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:19 AM
Creation date
6/10/2015 4:48:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/28/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
AN INTERESTED CITIZEN NOTED THAT MANY IN THESE SUBDIVISIONS <br />ARE BOUND BY THEIR ORIGINAL DEED TO THIS SYSTEM, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED MR. LOHMAN IF HIS COMPANY WOULD BE <br />WILLING TO ENTER INTO OUR STANDARD FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES THAT, <br />AT SUCH TIME AS THE COUNTY PROVIDES THE SERVICE, THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM <br />WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY AT NO COST. <br />MR. LOHMAN STATED THAT THEY WOULD. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THAT MR. LOHMAN <br />IS SATISFIED WITH THE RATES WE ARE PROPOSING, AND HE FELT POSSIBLY IN THAT <br />CASE WE SHOULD NOT TRANSFER THE FRANCHISE. HE CONTINUED THAT A TRANSFER <br />CANNOT BE DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE, BUT HE FELT THAT IF MR. LOHMAN CAN'T GET <br />THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO BRING THE SYSTEM UP TO THE REQUIRED STANDARDS, THAT <br />F <br />b <br />IS A JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO DENY TRANSFER. ti <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED THAT SOUTHERN GULF UTILITIES HAS <br />ARS <br />DONE NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM OVER ALL THESE Y E e AND HE FELT IT <br />WOULD BE BETTER IF TREASURE COAST UTILITIES TOOK OVER. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE HAS KNOWN MR. LOHMAN FOR A <br />LONG TIME AND FELT CERTAIN THAT, WITH HIS REPUTATION IN THIS COMMUNITY, <br />THE PEOPLE BEING SERVICED WOULD BE MUCH MORE SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICE <br />THEY RECEIVE. HE ALSO AGREED THAT IT MAY NOT BE FAIR TO COMPARE THIS SITUA— <br />TION TO THAT OF IXORA UTILITIES. HE CONTINUED THAT HE FELT SOME SORT OF <br />COMPROMISE MUST BE REACHED BETWEEN THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED FIGURES AND <br />THE INCREASE REQUESTED BY TREASURE COAST AND A TIME SET TO REVIEW THE <br />FIGURES AND EITHER REDUCE OR INCREASE THE RATES ACCORDINGLY. <br />LOWELL LOHMAN NOTED THAT WHEN YOU ASK FOR AN INCREASE, YOU <br />EXPECT TO MAKE SOME SORT OF COMPROMISE, BUT HE KNOWS HIS FIGURES CANNOT <br />BE REDUCED BY ANY GREAT PERCENTAGE AND WITH THE STAFF'S PROPOSED FIGURES, <br />THERE WILL BE A LOSS. HE STATED THAT THE ONLY APPEALING FEATURE OF THIS i <br />4 <br />FRANCHISE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT CAN BE EXPANDED, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HISTORICALLY UTILITY <br />COMPANIES IN THE 20'S AND 30'S OBTAINED FRANCHISES OVER LARGE AREAS, <br />REALIZING THEY WOULD HAVE A VALUE AT A LATER DATE. HE NOTED THAT..MANY <br />COUNTIES ARE NOW HAVING TO PAY LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR THESE FRANCHISES <br />• AND SUGGESTED THE BOARD ASK MR. LOHMAN IF HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING <br />THE FRANCHISE ASSIGNED ON A NON—EXCLUSIVE BASIS WHICH WOULD CLEAR UP ANY <br />QUESTION IN THE FUTURE ABOUT THE COUNTY PAYING FOR THE FRANCHISE. <br />6 <br />APR 2 81976 2.5 31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.