My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/22/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
12/22/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:21 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:58:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/22/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
EQ 2 21987, Book 70 F�, �. 418 <br />environmental catastrophes, such as the "Love Canal" situation, <br />there are very tight state and federal controls on how we handle <br />our solid waste. The existing cell of the Landfill is that giant <br />mountain, and we must monitor it to be sure no leachate can get <br />into the drinking water aquifer. Our master plan has addressed. <br />every option conceivable, and right now we think the most cost <br />effective way for Indian River County that is environmentally <br />sound is to continue operation of the landfill. Fortunately in <br />1970, the Commission had the foresight to buy some 200 acres so <br />we are able to expand the existing facility. <br />Director Pinto also apologized for the letter that was sent <br />out, explained that those in the business and dealing with it <br />every day just assume that everyone understands the terminology. <br />The letter received by all those present had nothing to do with <br />wastewater, which is the term for sewerage. Director Pinto then <br />asked the County Attorney to detail the alternatives of how to <br />pay for the landfill. The County Commission has directed staff <br />to find the best way to pass on the costs to make it fair for <br />everyone, and Mr. Pinto believed the present system is very <br />unfair. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the first alternative would be <br />to fund the cost through the ad valorem tax, which would mean the <br />person with the more expensive house would pay more even though <br />he generates the same amount of trash because you would pay based <br />on the value of your house. Vacant property also would be taxed <br />on the ad valorem roll even though it doesn't generate any trash. <br />This also means that people not on the tax rolls - transients, <br />churches, etc., would not pay anything. A special assessment <br />district makes sure everyone pays a fair share. Under what is <br />proposed, everyone who generates a ton pays for a ton. Right now <br />if you live in the county and do not subscribe to a hauler, you <br />may be paying nothing for disposal. But if you are just dumping <br />your trash at the transfer sites, somebody is paying your costs. <br />38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.