My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/08/2008
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
07/08/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2018 11:10:30 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/08/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4019
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7324
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. <br />Louis Graham thanked Projects Manager Dan Chastain for the excellent job he <br />did in his presentation in Sebastian. <br />Richard Graham, 528 Cross Creek Circle, San Sebastian Springs, talked about <br />money he spent installing two wells, and said if the project is constructed it would cost him what <br />he can not afford. He noted for the record, that there is substantial testimony that fluoride, while <br />dentally beneficial, is harmful to the liver and other organs. He declared that he does not need or <br />want this proposed water service; he will not connect to the service, and said it would be <br />wasteful and absurd to install this service as the current situation is fine. <br />Mr. Palowski, San Sebastian Springs, was a little chagrined to see that the Board <br />is so into this subject. He said the Association requires a vote, not a survey of any large <br />expenditure by the members of San Sebastian Springs. He pointed out that there has been no <br />vote, but through a Court order, a decree was issued to Mr. Fisher and his sons who are on the <br />Board of San Sebastian that no large expenditure be allocated to the members of San Sebastian <br />without a vote. So he wondered why we are all involved in this matter right now, and to whose <br />benefit this would matter. <br />Attorney Collins explained to the Board the issues to which Mr. Palosky was <br />alluding. He thought it involved assessments that are proposed by and installed by the <br />Association that would require an Association vote. Mr. Collins explained to Mr. Palosky that <br />this is not an Association improvement, it is a public water improvement initiated by the County, <br />at the request of 78% of the people in the Subdivision. <br />Mr. Paloswski argued that there was no Association vote and wanted to know <br />who would install this, and Attorney Collins informed him that the project is awarded by Bid. <br />22 <br />July 8, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.