Laserfiche WebLink
LJ <br />8oc'K: 92 Fx .357 <br />MAY 0 3 1994 <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the <br />Board of County Commissioners approve the awarding of the bid to <br />Jim Wright Construction, Inc. in the amount of $29,300. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously awarded <br />the bid for removal of Rivers Edge and Vero <br />Highlands ground storage water tanks and the Rivers <br />Edge wastewater treatment plant to Jim Wright <br />Construction, Inc., in the amount. of $29,300, as <br />recommended by staff. <br />AGREEMENT <br />IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING <br />POWER POLE SITING <br />The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Charles Vitunac <br />dated Apri1'20, 1994: <br />TO: Board of Countyy)Commissioners <br />�V f <br />FROM:_ Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />DATE: April 20, 1994 <br />RE: Proposed Ordinance re Power Pole Siting <br />The County Commission supported a general bill before the local <br />legislative delegation which would have required public hearings for <br />certain electrical power pole location decisions by electrical <br />utilities. At the Wednesday, April 20 Council of Local Government <br />Officials' meeting, State Representative -Charles Sembler informed us <br />that although the bill passed the House easily, it died in the Senate. <br />Representative Sembler then indicated that he had met at length with <br />representatives of the electrical utilities and had their word that the <br />utilities would present in time for the next session a workable solution <br />to the problem of notifying owners along projected electrical power pole <br />routes. <br />Before this legislative session began the County Commission voted to <br />withhold adoption of a -local ordinance until the state had an <br />opportunity to pass a state-wide bill. The motion of the Board was to <br />bring this matter back before it after the state had acted on our <br />proposed general bill; therefore, I am attaching a proposed local <br />ordinance which the Board could adopt if it so desired. <br />I believe there are two alternatives: <br />30 <br />