My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/21/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
3/21/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:10 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:20:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/21/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
w <br />Commissioner Bird questioned the cost per resident, and Mr. <br />Chastain advised that the cost would be about $1,178 for a 10,000 <br />square foot lot, 75 x 120 feet. <br />Commissioner Eggert inquired whether the Environmental Health <br />Department agreed with the assessment of substandard for the <br />present water quality, and Mr. Chastain responded affirmatively. <br />Commissioner Bird then questioned the options for payment of <br />the assessments and the timing for completion of the project when <br />the money would be due. <br />Mr. Chastain estimated that the project would be completed in <br />early 1996, approximately February. The first of 10 annual <br />installments would be due about February, 1997, at 8.5%. <br />Commissioner Bird reflected that this amount would bring water <br />to the property line and questioned what further obligations the <br />homeowner would have. <br />Mr. Chastain explained that when application to connect is <br />made, there is a $1,570 standard water impact fee, $130 for a <br />standard meter, and a $50 security deposit which will be refunded <br />after 2 years of satisfactory payment. The impact fee can be paid <br />over a 10 -year period in monthly installments, but owners of homes <br />already existing at the time of the assessment are not required to <br />connect. <br />The Board then noted a petition bearing 103 signatures of <br />opposed residents: <br />lmiiffiml <br />We the citizens of VERo BEACH HIGInANDS are AGAINST having county water lines nm into are area. <br />Therefore we are petitioning the Indian River County Commissioners to VOTE DowN THIS PRoiEcT. This <br />project is not wanted or needed. There is county lines already run through this area to provide FIRE <br />protection. <br />❑ Ycs <br />Name: �-ZAddresss: ,� p y,� v ''`� �,W- S Rcg�stcred Voler•.r-u;o .. 1K, ��o <br />Regislered Voler:Yes <br />~ Addresss:A UY-(, - 40 C4.,,� -� W� (ANo <br />Nam <br />(RECEIPT OF PETITIONS IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED. <br />PETITIONS HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO KIM CONANT) <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Robert Swift, 3820 Indian River Drive, managing partner of <br />Indian River Club, which is out of the proposed area, advised he <br />had received many calls regarding the project. He wished to state <br />MARCH 21, 1995 25 B®oK 94 M';E 651 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.