Laserfiche WebLink
impact fees and construction fees. Attorney Johnston felt <br />that any funds remaining in R&R should be refunded to the <br />utility, less any repairs needed to get the system up to <br />snuff; otherwise, the system is being charged twice. <br />Director Pinto disagreed. He pointed out that our own <br />county system is set up where we charge impact fees, and in <br />addition, we have a 5% R&R fund as required by the FmHA. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if this requirement is consist- <br />ent with our other franchises, and Attorney Brandenburg <br />replied that this paragraph is new. <br />In the continuing discussion, Director Pinto commented <br />that some of our older franchises stated that in seven <br />year's time, if -the County did not elect to exercise their <br />option to purchase, the impact fees would vest to the <br />utility, and he noted at that point we are going to be.faced <br />with how we handle the windfall of revenue this utility has <br />just received, which might even involve reducing their rate <br />structure so that again the customer would be the one who <br />would benefit. <br />Attorney Johnston stressed that he is not talking about <br />getting back the impact fees or construction fees; he is <br />talking about the R&R fees. <br />Director Pinto continued to emphasize that if the <br />County takes the system over, they are faced with the exact <br />same problem the franchisee would have with renewal and <br />replacement, and we maintain a renewal and replacement fund <br />other than impact fees of 5%, not just 2z%. This is our <br />normal operation. <br />Attorney Johnston asked when the 2k% per month.stops or <br />whether it just keeps building and building? <br />Mr. Pinto stated that it doesn't stop because renewal <br />and replacement doesn't stop. He again emphasized that the <br />utility can draw on that fund whenever necessary. <br />45 <br />600K 56 FA6E :116 <br />J <br />