Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />SEP 2 6 1984Boor 58 F„;, 47 <br />Chairman Scurlock asked about the ratio of the impact <br />fee vs. the rate structure. <br />Wayne Cliburn, Manager of Rates and Regulations for <br />GDU, stated that the rates were designed, at the behest of <br />the County Commission, to recover 75% of the investment. <br />Commissioner Bird stated that he was somewhat appalled <br />at the impact fee on water and sewer which would be over <br />$3,000 for a single family home, but he realized this is <br />intended to shed some of the burden from the monthly rate <br />payers. <br />Utilities Director Pinto clarified this would be taking <br />75% of the cost to service a customer, not as service <br />charges but as capital investment, and recovering that <br />specifically from the customer whom it is going to serve, <br />and it doesn't make it part of the rate base, which is <br />recovered within a service charge. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt that was consistent with our <br />approach. <br />Director Pinto then discussed the proposed language re <br />the 6% franchise fee, and the fact that this 6% will be <br />shown as a separate additional charge on the utility bills. <br />Commissioner Wodtke believed the customer undoubtedly <br />will feel that this is an increase in rates even though the <br />total on his monthly bill remains exactly the same. <br />Director Pinto clarified that one of the reasons we <br />have taken the position that we want the utility to identify <br />on the bills that it is a franchise tax and not included in <br />the bill, is so we can respond to it. Some counties don't <br />want this shown because they don't want to address it. <br />Chairman Scurlock agreed that we don't want to hide it. <br />Utilities Director Pinto requested GDU to outline their <br />concerns so we can get it into the record that they have <br />agreed to the changes that we have suggested. <br />62 <br />