My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/17/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
>
02/17/2005 BOARD OF HEALTH Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 5:20:48 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 2:51:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Nitrex System right now was 15 years.'They figured on setting aside around <br /> $5 o,000.00 to $75 NO.0 0 to replace the Nitrex Filter at that time and potentially if <br /> there .ere-sone tankage issues in there. He didn't believe the fields would go at that <br /> time. But, they felt that,that was a safe number given their exposure right now. The <br /> question was in the short term hoer to secure that wheth r it was a bond or to post <br /> cash. Obviously they didn't want to post cash. So they were probably looking at a <br /> bond. They would replace it as the fund grew up through contributions-over the <br /> fifteen years then the bond could decrease in value proportionately. The only other <br /> thing that they had in these documents was the potential to loch out a unit if they <br /> didn't pay. They didn't even know if that was earn legal. They.believed that it might <br /> not he. It carne in on one of the formats that they got. It probably wasn't a bad idea if <br /> it was a legal thing to do. <br /> a <br /> Mr. Santos interjected that for example if one of the single homeowners said that <br /> they were not going to pay them because they wanted to do something different or <br /> way. has that what he meant <br /> Mr. Teague stated that it was more about them not paying. Obviously if someone <br /> owns the house you could not evict them. <br /> Ms. warden thought that it would be more of a civil matter. <br /> Mr. Harrington stated that it wouldn't be a civil matter. <br /> Ms. warden asked hire what he meant. <br /> Mr. Harrington explained that it would not be a civil natter if it became a housing <br /> issue. The sanitary code said that an owner of the property could not shut off a <br /> utility. That was curtailment of service. <br /> Ms. warden asked who the owner would be. <br /> Mr. Harrington thought that the condominium association would essentially be the <br /> owner of the property. <br /> Mr. Santos understood what Mr. Harrington was saying. <br /> Mr. Teague stated that he didn't want to sound.like a jerk.. But, he didn't think it was <br /> had idea. <br /> Mr. Harrington added that while-reading through the documents was that there was a <br /> requirement that there had to be some other financial assurance that the system got <br /> built and maintained properly whether the board wanted to vote on that was fine or <br /> they could leave it up to the DEP's recommendation. Let's say that something got <br /> blocked up or somebody didn't want to pay and they got shut and there was'a <br /> nuisance created by the situation. Once there was a nuisance created the board had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.