My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/17/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
12/17/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:34 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:15:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/17/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
FF,_ <br />DEC J7 1992 <br />BOOK88 PAGE .32 7 <br />Director Pinto thought we possibly could state that the final <br />disposition of the bill is the responsibility of the property <br />owner. <br />Discussion ensued regarding when water would be shut off to an <br />individual mobile home. Director Pinto reported that we have not <br />turned off water to anyone in a mobile home park, but we do have <br />that right. <br />Ed Cleary, resident of Heritage Village, thought that his <br />charge for water should be discontinued when he leaves town and <br />goes up north.. <br />Director Pinto responded that as long as a customer is part of <br />the utility system, there -is a minimum charge. When a water meter <br />is turned off, the connection must stay in place and the treatment <br />plant must continue to maintain the capacity that is reserved for <br />the customer. <br />Ed Nelson, resident of Countryside North Mobile Home Park, <br />read from an article published in the Press Journal on November 26, <br />1992. <br />Director Pinto interrupted, and stated that Mr. Nelson was <br />reading from a newspaper editorial and that the writer did not know <br />what he was talking about when he wrote it. The editorial <br />discussed the rate structure and accused the County's consultant of <br />making a gross error. Director Pinto stated that there was no <br />error. The projections were made 1-1/2 years earlier and included <br />the cost of a sludge facility. An adjustment was necessary because <br />the construction of the sludge facility was delayed. <br />Mr. Nelson asked- about the General Development "package <br />plants," and Director Pinto responded that they are not package <br />plants. General Development has a Marolf-design contact <br />stabilization treatment plant in Sebastian. The City of Sebastian <br />is talking about what use they can make of that plant. The General <br />Development plant in Vero Beach Highlands is a concrete, poured -in- <br />place plant. The County looked at the Vero Highlands plant because <br />we have to build a south county plant, but General Development is <br />not interested at the present time in selling that plant. We have <br />an agreement with the City of Vero Beach that at some point in time <br />we must take capacity from the City of Vero Beach and build our own <br />plant, and we will build that new plant in south county. <br />Mr. Nelson questioned why General Development was allowed to <br />keep their privately -owned treatment plants but Heritage Village is <br />not. <br />Director Pinto said the difference is obvious when we look at <br />the General Development rate structure versus what it costs <br />Heritage Village to operate their treatment plant. If the City of <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.