My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/1/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
6/1/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:53 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:07:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/01/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14p 1992 <br />TO: JAMES E o CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO <br />DIRECTOR OF UTIL12 SERVICES <br />SUBJECT: COUNTRYSIDE MEETING <br />on Wednesday, September 9, at 10:00 a.m., county Attorney Charles <br />Vitunac,, Harry Asher,, and I met with Robert Hatfield and Robert <br />Peters, the owners of Countryside Mobile Home -Park. <br />We discussed the connection of -the mobile home park sewer system to <br />Indian River county's west regional system. <br />The mobile home park ownerof Position-wAs that they will not connect <br />until they are in a position to pass through m6fi-Iffi—ly charvaiL, This <br />position, of course, i -e -not -in accord with their signed contract. <br />since we are at a deadlock,, we must decide our next course of <br />action. Please advise on how you prefer to proceed. <br />Attorney Block reiterated that they are not saying that they <br />didn't know about the base facility charge because obviously they <br />have been receiving bills since October. They are saying that they <br />had an issue with the County about the base facility charge and <br />have talked with the County Administrator and County Attorney manyl <br />many times. <br />Chairman Bird related that a prior Commission made the <br />decision in setting up our rate structure that the system would be <br />run and financed through a base facility charge. Utilities staff <br />and other experts convinced us that was the most fair and equitable <br />way to do it and he didn I t know that we can back of f from that. <br />Some people have been paying bade facility charges for years on a <br />vacant piece of property. He felt it would be considered if there <br />were extenuating circumstances that would give the Board some <br />latitude in granting some relief from the base facility charge, but <br />the base facility charge has been a very vital part of our utility <br />system for a long time, unpopular as that may be with the people <br />who are paying it. <br />Director Pinto understood from Attorney Block that the issue <br />today is whether there should be special circumstances based on the <br />dispute about the location of the connection. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt we could do more about the penalties <br />than the base facility charges, but Commissioner Macht felt that <br />04 <br />J 1993 BOOK 89 ,,,4u 746 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.