Laserfiche WebLink
BOL�i� PC9,97 <br />I <br />Enclosed, with the copy of the Ordinance the County Commission <br />passed, is a copy of Indian River County Department of Utilities <br />Services Policies. As you can see, it clearly contradicts what the <br />ordinance says by stating that: <br />"The County may bill the tenant or occupant of each premise <br />for the water and sewer charges at the request of the owner, <br />express or implied, but this shall in no way relieve <br />the owner of responsibility for payment... Section 201.22" <br />The first point (1.) on their policy statement, from which the above <br />quote was taken, ends at this point, effectively suggesting to the <br />reader that the owner is not relieved of responsibility for payment of <br />the ent.lre bill when, in fact, the county ordinances specifically <br />state that the owner's responsibility ends -with the payment of base - <br />use charge! <br />This office has documented files which prove that the Utility <br />Department is attempting to collect the entire outstanding bill and <br />not ,lust the base meter fee from the property owner. Commissioners, I <br />strongly believe this to be a totally unacceptable, and possibly, <br />Illegal practice. <br />Mr. Pinto's explanation for all of this is also totally <br />unacceptable. He states that the large amounts of uncollected bills <br />are raising the cost of utilities for other users. While this may <br />well be the case, I would respectfully suggest that the reason for the <br />large amount of uncollected utility bills is because of the Utilities <br />Department's failure to institute proper collection procedures. When <br />a water bill accrues into the $300.00 to $400.00 range, it would <br />suggest that the Ut•ilit•les Department failed to shut the water off and <br />lock the meter in a timely fashion. <br />I respectfully request that this situation be looked into as soon <br />as possible. In addition to the inconvenience being caused this and <br />other property management offices, I have several property owners who <br />are becoming quite concerned. It would also be advisable to <br />reconsider Section 201.22. The entire idea of base fees seems unfair <br />and the,base fees are too high. <br />Thank you very much for your attention to these matter. <br />Sincerely <br />James A. Doolittle <br />REALTOR:GRI <br />JAD:ksb, <br />Enclosures <br />82 <br />MAY 79 1996 <br />