Laserfiche WebLink
When the County establishes a private utility franchise, we allow <br />the company to receive its investment back in two ways -- either <br />through connections fees or through the rate structure. However, <br />a private utility company cannot collect from units that are not <br />consl'ructed. In the past, Indian River County has requested <br />utilities to collect at least 80% of their capital investment <br />through connection fees. In this case, because it was an old <br />franchise, that was not taking place; therefore, their next step <br />was either to increase their rate structure to recover $5000 per <br />customer for capital improvements or collect return on that <br />investment of some 120-15% at a later date. It limits the <br />ability of anyone to collect any return on their investment on <br />the dines that were put in, and therefore, those who connect to <br />the system pay when they connect. They get charged a impact fee <br />and a line extension charge, the same as anyone else in the <br />county would pay for the construction of the new system. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if there would be any additional <br />costlto the customer for future connection to the County utility, <br />and Oirector Pinto said no, the purchase of the ground and the <br />future connections costs are being borne by the system as a whole <br />and I 1hat is being handled in the same way as when the County has <br />purchased other private utilities. The only people who are <br />payi g connection fees at Bent Pines are the owners of <br />undeveloped lots for which the developer would not have the <br />opportunity to recover his investment for those lines. The <br />existing units in Bent Pines are not paying the $1500. The <br />reason for that is that the County feels that the purchase of the <br />land actually is going to add to the capacity of the County <br />system and be a benefit rather than a cost to the system. <br />Bill Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, thanked Chairman Scurlock and <br />Director Pinto for dropping the countersuit against Bent Pines <br />Utility even though he felt that they could have held sway if <br />they1had pursued the case. He believed that dropping the <br />countersuit was in the best interests of the taxpayers, and <br />51 n <br />P 8 1917 BOOK. 69` FACE' 312 <br />4 <br />