My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/12/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
3/12/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:11:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
MAR 12 1991 <br />Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that in situations where <br />a number of units are being served by one meter, they would not be <br />penalized by being moved through the blocks of higher usage too <br />quickly and Mr. Hutchinson explained, in the recommended schedule, <br />multi -family, single -meter customers would be charged <br />incrementally; for example, a three -unit single -meter customer <br />would be allowed a 9,000 -gallon threshold before being accelerated <br />into the next volume block. <br />Mr. Hutchinson concluded by introducing Isabel Jettinghoff who <br />would present the recommendations on the ordinance and resolution. <br />Ms. Jettinghoff explained that policies and rate structures <br />are now combined into one document. The consultant's <br />recommendation is to isolate the policies from the rate and fee <br />structure because, in the future, if there is a need to adjust <br />rates the County would be able to address just those changes <br />without having to deal with the policies. <br />Ms. Jettinghoff further noted that the consultant's policy is <br />that if something is stipulated in the state or federal law, we <br />would not repeat it in the ordinance. <br />Commissioner Eggert suggested that a person should not have to <br />go to several sets of books to find out what an ordinance says and <br />she personally would prefer an ordinance that has everything in it. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked for an explanation of the concept <br />of mandatory hookup. <br />Director Pinto stated that our ordinance does not say <br />"mandatory" anywhere in the ordinance; the word "mandatory" is not <br />used. However, it does say that upon notification by the Utility <br />or by the County you may be required to connect. What that means <br />is that if you, at a previous time, by contract, have agreed to <br />connect -- an example would be a developer in Indian River County <br />who, in order to build a temporary facility, signed a contract with <br />,the County saying when the facility became available they will <br />connect, or someone who has reserved capacity -- they would be <br />notified and be required to connect to the system. There is <br />another area where, if there is a problem or a threat to the health <br />and welfare of the community, then, through the Health Department, <br />those causing the violation may be required to remedy the problem <br />by connecting to the system. It is very important, however, to <br />understand that even though the Health Department may require you <br />to hook up to the system, you must reserve capacity, because <br />capacity may not always be available. <br />Director Pinto continued that Indian River County operates <br />somewhat differently than most other systems in that we do not <br />build capacity other than what is requested; it's on a voluntary <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.