9/29/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 29 1982 ' six 5,1 XPi F 7 • Don C. Scurlock, Jr., - 2 - September 29, 1982 Chairman paying approximately $164,000.00 per year for water -sewer services, and we have budgeted for this amount. Under the County's proposal for each apartment of some gallons and $2.25 for each amount, our residents will a year. This is an increase of County can justify an increase based on the sewer system. We know ture, Vista Properties at a profit. in which there is a charge $9.00 for the first 2,000 1,000 gallons over the base be paying approximately $400,000.00 148%. We question whether the increase of 148% or any substantial cost of operating our water and that under the existing rate struc- operated our water -sewer system Our Association received numerous assurances when the County began operating our system that there would be no impact fee or substantial increases in rates. It now appears the County is attempting to place the main cost of expansion and operation of the new water -sewer pro- gram undertaken by the Coulity on the shoulders of the present users of water and sewer. It so happens that most of these present users are in -the Vista Royale com- plex. We think it unreasonable that the County can attempt to start the massive undertaking of servicing the south County area with water and sewer and expect it to be on a "profit making" basis within the first year -or -so of operation. We have no objection to paying our fair share. We be- lieve Vista Royale has a unique situation in which our water -sewer plant was basically paid -for by the residents. We have a unique metering system, which the County knew at the time the system was taken over, and which there are master meters for each building. We have numerous people who spend only a short period of time within our condominium development during the year, which means there is a substantial variation in water -sewer usage and re- quirements, which is not taken into account in any pro- posed rate structure. Additionally, we have received assurances from County officials numerous times that we would'be fairly treated, which means to us that our present and ongoing rate structure should bear some re- lation to the water -sewer charges that have been made in the past. There may be some alternative to placing the whole load on the existing users. One alternative may be a taxing district that would cover the areas to be sold. -Obviously,