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
service, the bills are going to go up to $50. He said his <br />neighbors asked why is the sewage and water so high in this County, <br />and proposed to go much higher, when it used to cost only a few <br />pennies a month. <br />Director Pinto pointed out that the wastewater treatment plant <br />at that specific park was antiquated and inefficient to the point <br />they were under state order because the treatment was not meeting <br />the required standards. <br />Mr. Roberts stated they had a certificate of quality on that <br />system. <br />Director Pinto stated that certificate was a directive to get <br />off the old system and connect into the County system, and <br />Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that old facility would not be <br />allowed to operate under current DER standards and they had a <br />choice either to upgrade that facility and spread the cost among <br />the customers or connect to the County system. <br />Mr. Roberts spoke of people moving out of the park because <br />they are scared stiff of having to pay $50 a month for water and <br />sewer. <br />Bill Ramsey, 141 Edward Drive in Aspen Whispering Palms, came <br />before the Board to express his concern over the word "mandate." <br />He knows everyone is tired of hearing that word, but when they met <br />with the park owners, the park owners insisted on it being in their <br />agreements and they insist it means we pay. Mobile home owners are <br />contemplating Court action; it has divided the tenants in the park, <br />and those who would not agree to pay impact fees have an additional <br />$16 per month to pay over what the others are paying who signed the <br />leases and agreed to pay the impact fees. The advice residents <br />have gotten from attorneys is that it would be nice if the County <br />Commissioners would have put in the ordinance that this is not a <br />government mandate. It has been stated that you do not say the <br />homeowner has to pay the charged but the park owners take the <br />attitude that, because they are being forced to hook up, it is a <br />mandate and, therefore, indirectly, we residents are being forced <br />to pay the bill. Mr. Ramsey reported, as a matter of fact, several <br />people in his park have paid the impact fee even though it is not <br />connected yet, and it is because of this discrepancy in the wording <br />over the buyer or the seller. He gave the example of a friend who <br />wanted to sell his home, the park owner offered to sell it for him <br />but wanted the impact fee up front; they would have to leave a <br />check for the County before the park owner would approve the sale. <br />And that's an example of the importance of the word "mandate." <br />Frank Widmer, 7440 North 132nd Street, came before the Board <br />to explain that in his neighborhood, which is at the northern part <br />51 <br />BAR 12 1991 <br />BOOK 812 F-acr. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.