My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/19/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
7/19/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:07 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:24:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/19/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
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
11 <br />ATTORNEY KRAMER NOTED THAT SEC. XVIII OF THE FRANCHISE <br />REQUIRES THAT THE COMPANY SHALL RENDER EFFICIENT SERVICE AND ALSO <br />REFERS TO THE QUALITY OF THE WATER, MAINTENANCE OF WATER PRESSURE, <br />ETC, HE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE ARE NO FIRE <br />HYDRANTS IN PARTS OF THE SERVICE AREA AS REQUIRED IN THE FRANCHISE <br />AGREEMENT, AND THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE INDICATED THAT THE WATER <br />PRESSURE FREPUENTLY MAY BE REDUCED OR EVEN CUT OFF WITH NO NOTICE, <br />WHICH HE FELT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE FRANCHISE. ATTORNEY <br />KRAMER CONTINUED THAT SEC. XX SAYS THAT NOTHING IN THE FRANCHISE <br />SHALL PREVENT A LAND OWNER FROM EXERCISING THEIR VESTED RIGHTS TO <br />PUMP WATER FOR THEIR OWN USE, HE THEN INFORMED THE BOARD THAT <br />SOME SUBSCRIBERS HAVE DEED RESTRICTIONS REQUIRING THAT THEY MUST <br />PURCHASE THEIR.WATER FROM THIS UTILITY SYSTEM, AND THE MINUTES OF <br />THE PREVIOUS RATE HEARING SHOW THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF IXORA <br />UTILITIES STATED THEY WOULD NOT WAIVE THE DEED RESTRICTION. <br />ATTORNEY KRAMER STATED THAT HE HAS ADVISED THE SUBSCRIBERS THAT, <br />IN HIS OPINION, THE DEED RESTRICTION IS ILLEGAL AND CANNOT BE <br />EXERCISED, <br />ATTORNEY KRAMER NOTED THAT ATTORNEY BOGOSIAN HAS INDICATED <br />THEY MADE SOME RASH PROMISES TWO YEARS AGO, BUT THAT THEY WERENIT <br />BOUND TO THE PROMISES BECAUSE THEY DIDN�T GET ALL THEY ASKED FOR. <br />ATTORNEY KRAMER FELT IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE MINUTES OF.THE 1976 <br />HEARING THAT THE RATES WERE GRANTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE <br />IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE MADE. ATTORNEY KRAMER POINTED OUT THAT THE <br />FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY IXORA UTILITIES SHOWS THEY SPENT <br />LESS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PLANT THAN THEY DID IN THE PRE- <br />VIOUS YEAR EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD A 100% INCREASE)AND HE QUESTIONED <br />WHERE THE EXTRA REVENUE FROM THE INCREASED RATES WENT. <br />ATTORNEY KRAMER ASKED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE MADE A PART <br />OF THE RECORD AS RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT #2: <br />1. FINAL ORDER OF THE DER TO IXORA UTILITIES, INC., DATED <br />JUNE 16, 1978. <br />2. NOTICE OF VIOLATION & ORDERS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATED <br />MAY 13, 1977. <br />A. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION - INSPECTION REPORTS - LETTER <br />FROM ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO NATHAN TANEN, JULY 5, 1977 <br />75 <br />JUL 19 1978 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.