My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/20/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
6/20/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:40:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/20/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
122
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
F. Public Hearing Scheduled - Utility Liens and Tenants Responsibility for <br />Bills Ordinance <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 12, 1995: <br />TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS <br />FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />DATE: June 12, 1995 <br />REI ORDINANCE REGARDING UTILITY LIENS AND TENANTS RESPONSIBILITY <br />FOR BILLS <br />The attached ordinance strengthens the county's ability to claim liens <br />for unpaid water and sewer services and makes non -owner customers (i.e., <br />tenants) of the utility system responsible for their own bills and <br />removes the owner's responsibility to make up any unpaid charges which <br />were the responsibility of the tenant. <br />If the Board approves the concept of this ordinance we would <br />respectfully request that a public hearing be scheduled for August 1, <br />1995. <br />Commissioner Eggert wondered what prompted the ordinance and <br />if it was really necessary, and County Attorney Vitunac explained <br />how the provisions in the proposed ordinance would further protect <br />the County regarding utility liens with or without formal filing <br />and how it would make the tenant responsible for overdue utility <br />bills. <br />Commissioner Eggert then asked why County Attorney Vitunac <br />felt overdue utility bills should be the tenant's responsibility <br />and not the landowner's. County Attorney Vitunac thought the one <br />most able to protect itself was the utility company by requiring <br />security deposits. <br />Chairman Macht thought he may have a problem with voting on <br />the proposed ordinance because he owns some rental property, and <br />County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the ordinance addresses a <br />matter of public importance and would not enure to Chairman Macht's <br />private financial gain. By Chairman Macht making it known that he <br />owns property and that it was not specifically for one of his <br />properties, Attorney Vitunac declared it would be alright for him <br />to vote. <br />June 20, 1995 <br />800K 95 PAcE 456 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.