My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/07/2006 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
03/07/2006 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2022 12:06:43 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:00:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/07/2006
Archived Roll/Disk#
3097
Book and Page
130, 318-364
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
291
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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
ON UTILITY DEPT.’S WATER CONSUMPTION FEE AND <br />IMPACT FEE ON UTILITIES <br /> <br />Joseph Paladin <br /> thought it was grossly unfair that a developer has to pay the <br />“service bill” on the utility of $26 per month for each unit after the developer vests the (utility) <br />impact fees in a particular proposed development because it could span over 2 or 3 years before the <br />units are built. He thought it would be fair to address this and suggested the Commissioners permit <br />him to sit down with the Utilities Department and figure out when the most opportune time would <br />be for these fees to start such as when the water meter is installed. <br />County Administrator Baird totally disagreed with Mr. Paladin. He explained that <br />when a developer comes to the County to reserve capacity for units to be built in the future, the <br />Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires the County to reserve that capacity and it <br />cannot be resold to anyone else even though it is not being used. The County’s utility rate structure <br />is set up taking into consideration operating costs, fixed costs of the plant related to producing <br />water, fixed costs for plant operators, a variable cost for volume used, debt reduction costs, and <br /> <br />depreciation on the equipment.He cautioned that if we were to remove the fee, the County would <br />be subsidizing the developer and current users would have a 7-8% increase in their utility bills. A <br />plant could be running at 60% capacity with the other 40% held by developers. Fixed costs are <br />merely being passed on to the developers. He cautioned that the Board would be making a big <br />mistake if they were to change this rate structure. <br />When Chairman Neuberger suggested that staff sit down with Mr. Paladin to discuss <br />this, County Administrator Baird reiterated that if the Board were to decide to subsidize the <br />developers, there would have to be a rate increase for all other customers. <br />In response to Vice Chairman Wheeler’s scenario regarding Vero Highlands, <br />County Administrator Baird explained that when the County expands service to an established <br />neighborhood, the benefiting homeowners would be assessed. The County does not force <br />homeowners to hook up when the pipe is first put down. They would pay a monthly fee of $26 per <br />March 7, 2006 <br />21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.