My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/10/2012 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2012
>
04/10/2012 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 4:45:07 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 5:14:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/10/2012
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4053
Book and Page
142, 295-327
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
12.J UTILITIES SERVICES - NONE <br />13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS <br />13.A. INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING <br />CHAPTER 204 OF THE IRC CODE (SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL) <br />Attorney Polackwich explained how the proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 204 <br />(Solid Waste Disposal) of the Indian River County Code, and the amendments relating to the <br />requirements for construction and demolition (C&D) debris material and recyclable material <br />franchise processors. He believed the amendment would help the County better achieve <br />recycling goals and bring the County into a position whereby current practices would be <br />consistent with the language of the Ordinance. <br />Attorney Polackwich addressed Vice Chairman O'Bryan's questions concerning tipping <br />fees and accountability. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Flescher, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Davis, to approve staff's <br />recommendation. <br />Scott Harrington, H&H Dumpsters and small business hauler, questioned the <br />requirement for C&D processors to pay franchise fees to both the City and County. <br />• <br />Discussion ensued regarding the franchise fees, the franchise agreement, enforcement of <br />required insurance, and finding a solution for implementing only one franchise fee. <br />Attorney Polackwich said he would review the dual franchise fee and bring the proposed <br />Ordinance back to the Board for final adoption in mid-May. <br />April 10, 2012 18 <br />81{ 142 PG 324. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.