Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />FEB 15 1994 <br />aQDlk '5 -3 <br />would give them the authority to service the entire beach <br />area without coming back to us in the future. He felt that <br />this matter should be settled prior to the transfer <br />occurring. <br />Commissioner Lyons certainly did not want to leave <br />these people high and dry, as they now fully expect service <br />from the County one way or another, and it seemed to him <br />that this is something we should get settled in advance. <br />Lengthy discussion ensued regarding ways in which to <br />protect the interests of the unvested property owners before <br />approving the transfer. <br />Director Pinto stated that if they are not annexed, and <br />it is a City service area, and the City refuses service, <br />those people can still come to the County and ask for a <br />franchise and the County can still grant a franchise. If <br />they are annexed, then it is the City's responsibility. <br />When you turn it over to the City, a provision can be made a <br />part of the agreement in regard to whether or not the County <br />will allow franchises to be -established. <br />Commissioner Bird wanted to make sure that they can <br />come back to the County for a franchise if they are denied <br />water service or a franchise by the City. <br />Director Pinto stated that it might be advisable to <br />include in the agreement a provision; very similar to what <br />is written in most exclusive franchises, that a reasonable <br />time be given for the franchise or the municipality to <br />provide service. It was his experience that the courts have <br />said that if service cannot be provided within a reasonable <br />amount of time, the people must be given an option. He <br />informed the Board that, in,any case, approval of Change <br />Order #4 is advisable. <br />32 <br />