My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/25/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
2/25/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:16 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:53:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/25/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT <br />DOES NOT HAVE FACILITIES TO TAKE THE UTILITY OWNER TO COURT AND DEMAND <br />THAT HE MAKE THE SYSTEM SAFE AND MAINTAIN IT PROPERLY. HE BELIEVED <br />THE RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE OWNER WHERE IT BELONGS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT OUR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT DOES <br />HAVE THIS PROVISION, AND THAT IS THE THRUST OF THE DER ACTION, BUT <br />THE OWNER IS HIDING BEHIND A SHELL CORPORATION. <br />DR. FLOOD CONFIRMED THAT THE DER HAD A VERY SHARP LAWYER <br />PRESENT AT THE MEETING, AND THERE WASN'T AN AVENUE WE COULD SUGGEST <br />TO GET AT THE OWNER THAT THEY HADNIT ALREADY INVESTIGATED. <br />COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED ABOUT THE PHYSICAL ASSETS IN— <br />VOLVED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THE ASSETS ARE THE LINES IN THE <br />GROUND, THE PLANT ON SITE, AND A SMALL PIECE OF REAL ESTATE (ABOUT 1/3 <br />ACRE.) THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE BOARD IS NOT IN A POSITION TO <br />TAKE ANY ACTION WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO GIVE <br />THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THE DEFAULTS THEY <br />KNOW OF IN THE SYSTEM, AND HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD ALLOW HIM <br />TO SET UP SUCH A HEARING AND BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER. <br />HERCULES KONTOULAS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE IS A HOME OWNER <br />IN THE AFFECTED AREA AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS. HE STATED THIS SUB— <br />DIVISION WAS DESIGNED WITH SANITARY SEWER AND WATER, AND IF HE HAD TO <br />PUT IN A SEPTIC TANK, HE WOULD OBJECT VERY STRENUOUSLY. HE DID NOT <br />BELIEVE IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE,THAT THE SYSTEM <br />WORKS, BUT FELT THAT THE UTILITY OWNER SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO <br />BRING THIS SYSTEM UP TO STANDARDS. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE POINTED OUT THAT THIS SYSTEM IS OWNED BY <br />A CORPORATION, AND IF THAT CORPORATION IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE, IT <br />PRESENTS ALL KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES. HE ASKED IF THE OPTION PRESENTED <br />MR. KONTOULAS WAS TO PUT IN A SEPTIC TANK OR PAY THE COUNTY THREE OR <br />FOUR TIMES MORE TO PUT IN'A PROPER PLANT, WHAT HIS REACTION WOULD BE. <br />MR. KONTOULAS STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT WANT TO ABANDON HIS <br />HOME BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE ANY SEWER. <br />FEB 251991 <br />40 <br />BOOK 45.6'cE '00 O)0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.