11/9/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Scurlock next discussed whether the impact fee or "contribution" actually pays for the plant, the plant capacity, and the distribution system, or whether some of this is in the rate structure and noted that at a premeeting with General Development, a percentage was given in the 50/50 or 60/40 range, indicating that the impact fee did not pay for all of these things. The Minutes of the 1977 meeting, which basically dealt with impact fees, reflect, however, that the proposal presented to the Commission by General Development Utilities at that time was intended to recover all costs from the impact fee as evidenced by Mr. Mosian's statement that "under the proposed policy they were asking each customer to pay for the sewer plant they built, for the line extension, and for physically connecting his property to the line." Mr. Fancher commented that we are both trying to work with those Minutes and interpret them, but it is a fact that the contribution amounts that have been approved through the years have in no instance paid for 100%. They have been designed to cover only a portion of that investment and that portion has changed throughout the years. The actual investment per customer has remained pretty stable as a result of that policy. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the percentage carried for plant expansion under the present proposal has increased or decreased? Is a higher percentage of dollars being collected from existing residents now than was in 1978, or in other words, is the present rate payer carrying more of the load or less? Mr. Fancher explained that it does not work exactly that way - in 1978 it cost $1,500 for a proportion of plant line and meter installation. During 1978 they charged $500.00 in contributions, leaving an amount to be collected through monthly rates of $1,000. In 1982 it now costs 15 N O V 9 1983r� 5Q