Laserfiche WebLink
and who hasn't. It would appear that in some cases they were still <br /> charging the homeowners for the service, so it is either being done and <br /> they were not receiving it or it was not being done and they were being <br /> charged for it. He wanted to make the beard aware that there were going <br /> to be quite a few properties. It seemed pretty consistent. <br /> Mr. Santos felt that most of the responsibility fell on the new homeowner. <br /> If they signed a contract with a reputable company to perforin this <br /> service...He didn't want to get into a hassle,,, <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that he agreed with Mr. Santos, However, there <br /> was also a ramification against the consulting company who is doing the <br /> monitoring because they hold a Class I and a Class Il Wastewater <br /> Treatment and operator's License. so if they were not meeting the <br /> requirements that were set within the manufacturer's recommendations. <br /> Then ultimately are they reporting, not, doing it, was it fraudulent or not. <br /> There may be ramifications directly against the company. What Mr. <br /> Santos was stating was Mr. Harrington's first thought also. However, the <br /> company also has a responsibility to the board as well. <br /> Mr. Santos re-iterated that in the past the board has gotten stuck in the <br /> middle and end up mediating it. <br /> Ms. Warden added that it was a contractual agreement. The homeowner <br /> has to be up front with the service. The service is not being provided. You <br /> are paying someone and a service is expected, <br /> Mr. Santos did not want to get into a civil matter that should be between <br /> the company and the homeowner, Ultimately the homeowner carne in, <br /> obtained a variance from the board for whatever reason and the board <br /> worked with then. They could have denied the variances, They were <br /> responsible and should go after the company that is failing to provide the <br /> service. He did not want to end up mediating between the two parties. <br /> Mr. Harrington interjected that there were responsibilities that the <br /> company had by Title V. But, by the Mate's permit that has been issued <br /> for that technology. They would copy the state on the situation and they <br /> could follow up on it. But, as the approving authority for Title V they also <br /> have the authority to enforce it. <br /> Nis. Warden felt that they should perhaps contact or copy George <br /> Heuf lder over at the county, There was program and it was still in effect, <br /> which hasn't been followed up on as of late. The whole point was to ; <br /> document all of the I/A that were going in and from there they could <br /> monitor the activity during the maintenance and testing of the systems. <br /> w <br /> 24 <br />