Quote:
Originally Posted by Mleeja
The reply highlighted is not correct. I have copied the statment from the Disrtict 5 meeting minutes. "Ms. Tutt advised that District 5 is the owner of the property and would be the “victim” in this case." I also think that comments from this site had very little in the decision to offer a settlement by the District Supervisors. The "perps" have been punished to the tune of $25,000+. Restitution has been made. It has been a very expensive lesson for someone.
|
The fine payment was to be distributed to more than district 5. That was known from the start.
It is most certainly is correct. From an article in Feb. on the online news site:
"The good news for CDD 5 residents is that they won’t foot the cost of restoration alone.
The cost of restoration is estimated to run from $30,000 to $50,000 and will be shared by districts in the Project Wide Advisory Committee."