Laserfiche WebLink
APR 2 319800 <br />ntf <br />ACRE. IF <br />A PARTICULAR RESIDENCE WERE LOCATED AT THE REAR <br />OF <br />THREE <br />ACRES, THE OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR 12 UNITS ACCORDING <br />TO THIS FORMULA. A DEVELOPER WOULD BE COVERED UP TO FOUR UNITS PER <br />ACRE. IF HE HAS ONE UNIT ON 10 ACRES AND LATER WANTS TO COME IN <br />WITH 25, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL UNITS HE IS PROPOSING <br />TO DEVELOP. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS BROUGHT UP ATTORNEY O'HAIRE'S CLIENT ON <br />THE NORTH�BEACH, NOTING THAT MR. LINER KNOWS WHAT THE COSTS ARE TO <br />IMPROVE THAT SYSTEM TO ACCEPT THIS DEVELOPER AND HE KNOWS WHAT MR. <br />O'HAIRE'S CLIENT HAS OFFERED. THE ATTORNEY ASKED IF MR. LINER HAD <br />APPLIED THIS FORMULA TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT TO SEE WHAT THE COSTS <br />WOULD BE, AS HE FELT IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE ACTUAL <br />COST THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO FACE TO IMPROVE THAT SYSTEM TO ACCEPT <br />ATTORNEY O'HAIRE'S CLIENT. <br />MR. LINER STATED THAT HE HAD NOT BECAUSE THESE ORDINANCES <br />ARE MEANT TO BE EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 1ST. HE FELT THEY HAD <br />MENTIONED TO THEM THE COST OF $200 CONNECTION PER UNIT, AND THE <br />ORDINANCE PROPOSES TO INCREASE THAT COST TO $250. HE POINTED OUT <br />THAT BOTH OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES PROVIDE THAT ANY PREVIOUS AGREE- <br />MENTS WOULD BE HONORED. MR. LINER DID FEEL THAT IF A NEW ORDINANCE <br />IS PASSED AT THIS TIME, THEN THE NEW RATES WOULD`APPLY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED METHOD FOR DETERMIN- <br />ING THE COST OF EXTENSION OF MAINS, AND ASKED WHAT IS TO PREVENT <br />SOMEONE FROM GETTING THE CONNECTION AND THEN SUBDIVIDING AFTERWARD. <br />MR. LINER REPLIED THAT THE BASIS FOR ANY EXTENSION IS THAT <br />IT HAS TO BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, AND COMMISSIONER LYONS NOTED <br />THAT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE STATED THAT IT IS <br />"SUBJECT TO ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PERTAINING TO ANY PROPOSED EXTENSION <br />COMPLYING WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND PROVISION FOR DEBT SERVICE." <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT "WHEREAS" CLAUSES ARE <br />NOT BINDING; THEY ARE JUST AN EXPRESSION OF INTENT. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED WHERE WE WOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING TO <br />ASSURE THE COUNTY THAT IT IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE BEFORE AN EXTENSION <br />•: <br />