Laserfiche WebLink
r S E P 1004 1 <br />Boor 58 F'r Gr 176. <br />Chairman Scurlock agreed that the intent of the <br />ordinance is good but felt the administrative procedures <br />must be developed very specifically so that we can be sure, <br />in the event the County system does not happen, that we have <br />an effective safe way of handling the waste. He expressed <br />interest in the procedure recommended, but felt the proposed <br />ordinance is too vague. <br />Administrator Wright brought up the example of where a <br />condo development is going in and we do not want them to <br />have to put in a plant of their own and possibly only run it <br />six months or a year until the County gets there. He noted <br />that they then would have this large investment that serves <br />no real purpose. <br />The Chairman agreed we do not want to require someone <br />to spend money unnecessarily, but we do not want to get into <br />a situation where we end up with problems. <br />Commissioner Lyons agreed we need to be more specific. <br />He noted that if any temporary utilities are going to charge <br />rates for anything they do, then he doesn't want to see <br />rates that are going to be such that when we do take over, <br />there will be "shellshock." <br />Chairman Scurlock believed that if we have all the <br />policies in black and white, we will have a lot less <br />pressure. In this case we are anticipating a county plant, <br />but there is the possibility someone might ask for the <br />temporary permit based on some other alternative to a <br />package plant. <br />Administrator Wright felt the requirement of "receiving <br />permanent service from the county within 18 months" is the <br />key. <br />Commissioner Lyons pointed out that there is no appeal <br />provision. He also liked the idea, but felt it is too broad <br />and that it should be tabled until it can be spelled out <br />more completely. <br />70 <br />M <br />