My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/14/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/14/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:20:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/14/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
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
MAY 14 1991 <br />Roca 83 <br />from day one, not the water. He stressed that this county has <br />been here to try to provide services not to "gig" 546 residents. <br />He noted that the 890 people on the other side are tickled pink. <br />Mr. Nelson says maybe they don't understand the deal they got, <br />but they were at that same negotiating table and the same <br />meetings when it was approved in 1985. <br />Commissioner Scurlock agreed that the park residents do have <br />a problem, and that is the leases they entered into with the park <br />owners. To say we have never made a mistake, however, would be <br />ridiculous. He noted that when he was elected in 1980, we didn't <br />have a utility system, a utility director, or a finance <br />department within the Utilities Department; everything was in the <br />infancy stage. We had over 86 package plants out there with no <br />money to do anything, and in some cases with raw sewage running <br />in the streets. Commissioner Scurlock could say that the people <br />did work with him at those meetings in a good faith effort to <br />make things better, and they brought that agreement of 1985 to <br />the Board and they supported it aggressively. All the problems <br />came about 10 or 11 years later. Now they are at the point of <br />deciding whether to buy the park or not, and Commissioner <br />Scurlock pointed out that if they do, everything will be passed <br />on to them including the $40 a month bill. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he has worked extremely <br />hard for the mobile home community in this county and tried to <br />bring them utility services; there has been no "cover up" and <br />nothing dishonest, and he finds the statements that have been <br />made about him very hurtful. He.has made mistakes, but he has <br />not knowingly ever misrepresented, and he has certainly never <br />called Mr. Nelson or anyone else on the committee dishonest, <br />untruthful, a liar or incompetent. Mr. Nelson was there and <br />worked together with him in those years; so, possibly he made <br />some mistakes also, and now for him all of a sudden to say that <br />Indian River County is a bunch of "sleezebags" who are trying to <br />steal your money is not right. For the record, Commissioner <br />Scurlock advised that he got his Countryside Phase IV Report <br />Booklet not until Monday morning, which was after Mr. Nelson <br />received it, and he asked Administrator Chandler if any <br />Commissioner involved themselves in any way in the making up of <br />this report or if he checked with any of the Commissioners before <br />giving out the report. <br />Mr. Chandler confirmed that no Commissioner involved <br />themselves in any way with his report, and the only people he did <br />check with were OMB Director Baird and Utilities Director Pinto <br />just to ask them to look at it from the standpoint of whether it <br />was accurate, not as to whether they agreed with his conclusions. <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.