My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/15/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
12/15/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:12:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/15/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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
is what he was requesting. He urged the Board to avoid litigation <br />and the high costs associated with lawsuits. He estimated that <br />over the 10 years, the impact fees will be in the County's hands <br />and at that time the system could be hooked up. <br />Chairman Eggert clarified that a condition of the original <br />development agreement was to hook up to the County wastewater <br />system when it became available. <br />Attorney Block agreed that in the franchise it does indicate <br />that the hook-up is mandated. <br />County Administrator Jim Chandler further advised that a <br />condition of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council was that <br />the package plants were to be considered temporary until such time <br />as County facilities became available, so the requirement to hook <br />up extended beyond just our franchise agreement. It was part of <br />the original permitting and approval of the development itself. <br />That was one of the conditions of the Department of Environmental <br />Regulations in 1980. <br />Commissioner Bird thought it sounded simple and asked for the <br />other side of the story. <br />Utility Services Director Terry Pinto agreed it is simple when <br />we are looking at one specific wastewater treatment plant in the <br />county, but the master plan of the county recognizes that package <br />plants are not good for the county. When you look at them on an <br />overall basis, collectively, they are bad, even when a plant is <br />operating properly. The county invested $90 million dollars for a <br />utilities system based on franchise agreements. These agreements <br />are what allowed these facilities to be built in the first place. <br />When the developer went to the Regional Planning Council and came <br />to this County Board, they were allowed to build because they <br />entered into that agreement. They understood that utilities are a <br />major issue for this county and we cannot allow package plants to <br />be scattered through the county. <br />Director Pinto explained that the phasing that Mr. Block <br />mentioned has been proposed as a method of paying impact fees. <br />Indian River County has gone beyond anyone in the state in offering <br />many different ways of paying impact fees. One of the options is <br />not to pay the impact fee until the unit that you are living in is <br />sold. The logic behind that is that there is a money transaction <br />taking place and it should make that process a little less <br />difficult. The County Commission offered a finance plan over a 10 - <br />year period. That is phasing. The request for an extension to the <br />year 2002 is not phasing. Director Pinto felt it would be <br />detrimental to our system to have a package wastewater treatment <br />plant like that at Countryside because when there is a failure <br />19 <br />9r,15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.