Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 2 21980 Box 45 pw 86 <br />4. If the plant capacity is used up before accepted, the developer will <br />be given -the option of having his agreement rescinded and the impact <br />fees refunded, or have the agreement and priority level remain in <br />effect until service can be provided. <br />When these priorities are all satisfied, if there is plant capacity <br />remaining, the same priority schedule shall apply for non-contiguous <br />connections that are economically feasible. The feasbility pertains to <br />extending the water mains according to the Master Utility Plan. <br />George Liner Utilities Director <br />GL/kh <br />cc: John Robbins <br />Joe Collins <br />file <br />* If the fees are escalated during the period the connection is contracted <br />for, the customer will be required to pay the escalated fee prior to <br />making the connection. When a project is developed in phases, the County <br />responsibility shall be limited to servicing only those connections <br />paid in advance. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF AN <br />INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER AND WHETHER ITEM 2A ALSO WOULD INCLUDE COMMERCIAL. <br />MR. LINER STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED AN INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER <br />A FAMILY THAT WANTS SERVICE TO THEIR EXISTING HOME, AND UNDER 2P:, HE <br />WAS THINKING IN TERMS OF A FAMILY HOME. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED WHERE COMMERCIAL FITS INTO THIS <br />PRIORITY SYSTEM, AND MR, LINER STATED THAT IF THE COMMERCIAL IS IN <br />EXISTENCE, OR IF IT IS TO BE BUILT, AND THE OTHER PRIORITIES ARE <br />COMPLETED, IT COULD.GET ON THE LIST: HE FELT IT WOULD BE COVERED <br />UNDER 2B AND 2C, AND ALSO UNDER ITEM 3. HE AGREED IT MIGHT CLARIFY <br />MATTERS TO SPECIFY THOSE COMING UNDER 2A AS INDIVIDUAL SINGLE FAMILY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE INTENT OF THE MID FLORIDA <br />AGREEMENT IS THAT WE HOOK UP CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES, AND HE FELT THE <br />WORD "CONTIGUOUS" NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED UNDER 2A, I.E., "INDIVIDUAL <br />SINGLE FAMILY CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES APPLYING..." THE BOARD AGREED. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE INTENT OF 2A IS TO LIMIT <br />THE APPLICATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDINGS OR WHETHER IT WOULD MAKE A DIF— <br />FERENCE IF THE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER APPLIES FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME <br />THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD THAT WILL BE CONTIGUOUS TO SOMEONE ALREADY <br />HOOKED UP. <br />80 <br />