My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/19/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
11/19/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:02:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/19/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
_ - M <br />benefit analysis. It was much more cost effective for the City of <br />Vero Beach, which was already providing utility service east of the <br />river, to take over the South Beach franchise. <br />-- Director Pinto related that after he was hired in 1982 his <br />first task as Utilities Director was to raise rates so that the <br />County would not be in default on the FHA bonds. At that time the <br />Utilities Department had a $200,000 budget deficit. In addition, <br />the County had over 100 franchises with private utilities systems, <br />some of which had not been adequately maintained and needed to be <br />taken over by the County as soon as possible. <br />Director Pinto then proceeded to give a slide show <br />presentation, and written materials were provided to each Board <br />member. The presentation included an organizational chart of the <br />Utilities Department, bar graphs demonstrating plant and equipment, <br />water and wastewater growth statistics, and Florida Department of <br />Environmental Regulation requirements for utilities expansion. <br />Additional slides were shown of the various water production <br />facilities in the County and their respective capacities. <br />Wastewater reclamation facilities were discussed, and Director <br />Pinto explained that the Utilities Department is not currently <br />reselling treated effluent, but is using the effluent for County <br />irrigation, including the golf course and sod farm. He predicted <br />that there will be an increasing demand for effluent during the <br />next few years, and the County will be treating increasing amounts <br />of effluent. If the resale does not bring enough income to pay for <br />the treatment, then the person who generated the wastewater must <br />necessarily bear the burden of the cost for treating it. <br />Ken Macht asked whether a customer's utility bills increase or <br />decrease when the County takes over a franchise and Director Pinto <br />explained that the County's rates are frequently higher, because in <br />most cases the developer has been subsidizing the cost of <br />utilities. <br />Director Pinto then explained the procedure when the County <br />takes over private franchises. If the private franchise has not <br />recovered their investment by the time it is taken over by the <br />County, the County charges a surcharge to the customers within that <br />development, which is turned over to the developer. After the <br />developer has recovered his investment, the surcharge is <br />discontinued. <br />Commissioner Adams asked if the customers would have to pay an <br />additional surcharge if the County sold the plant, and Attorney <br />Vitunac explained that since the County would not make any money on <br />the sale there would not be an additional surcharge. <br />3 <br />NOVL_ IV 1992 BOOK 88 F,,u Fj- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.