My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/2/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
5/2/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:24 AM
Creation date
6/4/2015 12:50:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/02/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
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
Attorney Cockley commented that perhaps the Board will <br />recall that one of the issues the Moorings raised in the <br />proceeding was recision of the permit on the ground that <br />Hutchinson Utilities had failed to make disclosures, and, in <br />fact, misrepresented material facts in the case. As there <br />is nothing in this order pertaining to that, it appears that <br />this Board has in effect rejected that issue and it would be <br />a matter for further appeal if it is to be pursued. <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained that the order speaks in <br />the affirmative only and everything that is not addressed <br />affirmatively in the order, there is no action taken on; the <br />County is going on the premise that their franchise is valid <br />and will continue to be valid. He confirmed that the <br />subject of whether it is invalid could be the subject of <br />another action. Attorney Cockley felt that answered his <br />question. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if anyone else wished to be <br />heard. <br />Burt Hamilton, 1896 Mooring Line Drive, wanted to quote <br />two comments made by Mr. Aiello of Hutchinson Utilities, <br />Inc., during the hearing in March, but Attorney Brandenburg <br />advised that portion of the hearing has already been closed <br />out along with the Moorings Property Owners Association's <br />petition of December, 1982 requesting a review of the rates <br />then in effect. The rates have been reviewed and are a <br />subject of this Final Order. <br />Mr.. Hamilton next objected to the delay in receiving <br />the Hutchinson Utilities 1983 statement which was being <br />prepared by some high-priced consultants from Syracuse, New <br />York. His biggest objection, however, was the purchase by <br />the utility of a ditch digger for a cost of $118,000, and he <br />hoped the residents of the Moorings were aware of this <br />because they are going to pay $25,000 a year for this piece <br />of equipment. Mr. Hamilton believed that all of the tap -ins <br />61 <br />BOOK PAGE 857 <br />MAY 21984 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.