My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/19/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
12/19/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:01:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/19/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
_I <br />DEC 19 1994 <br />BOOK 59 255 <br />Commissioner Bird asked Director Pinto if under this new <br />franchise we can give the residents the assurance that the <br />system will be maintained in a safe and sanitary manner, and <br />Director Pinto felt that we could, but it has to be understood <br />that we are trying to get the maximum out of a minimum cost. <br />Chairman Scurlock objected to allowing depreciation on the <br />proposed rate increase. <br />Attorney McHugh believed that the primary concern of the <br />residents is that the system has not been working properly, and <br />they really do not want to take over or continue on a system <br />that is not operating effectively. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt that the Board would support either <br />going to septic tanks or hooking up with the City, but stressed <br />that the Commission is bound into approving a rate increase <br />today, and again recommended that the depreciation be taken out. <br />Attorney McHugh explained that his clients were uncertain <br />as to why these operational costs have increased so drastically <br />in the last few years when inflation has been on the decline. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained that most of these wastewater <br />systems were put in by developers who were not really in the <br />utility business and subsidized the systems in order to sell <br />lots. When all the lots are sold, the developers walk away and <br />the plants become the problem of the property owners. This <br />results in the County Commission having to face disgruntled <br />citizens time after time because appropriate rate structures <br />were not set in the initial stages. <br />Thomas Steinruck, Jr., 1956 Angler's Cove, pointed out that <br />when he moved into his brand new home, they charged him a <br />connection fee of $350 besides the regular monthly rate. He <br />felt that the developer has already benefited by selling the <br />lots in the development, and objected to the developer receiving <br />a 300% increase. He pointed out that the franchise is actually <br />a monopoly that the County allows, and, therefore, he felt the <br />County must protect the customers from such a drastic rate <br />33 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.