7/5/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

told the impact fee would be a 5 year financing and the construction costs would be financed over 10 years at 10 over prime. Mrs. Mary Askew confirmed that they were given that informa- tion by Jeff Boone of the Utilities Department before they signed the petition. Chairman Scurlock advised that 5 years is our standard type plan. but we have done some special assessments for our larger projects. Utilities Director Pinto reported that staff has looked at about 9 different options regarding placing water and trying to bring the cost of the project down, but even including the whole area, there isn't any substantial difference in the cost per unit. He did feel we will be doing the rest of the area in the near future. As to the numbers just quoted by the gentleman, the construction cost is very close to what was originally estimated several years ago, but what was omitted and not told was that along with that is the impact fee which pays for the capacity in the treatment plant itself and the major transmission lines, for which omission he apologizes. Chairman Scurlock gave the example of his neighborhood assessment, which was $1,900 and the impact fee was $1,140, or about $3,400 and noted there are about 50 people in his neighborhood. Mrs. Askew repeated that they spoke with Jeff Boone and were specifically told that the $2500 included the .impact fee; he also said 5 years on the impact fee and 10 on the construction cost at 10 over prime - they were misled. D.irector.Pinto informed Mrs. Askew that Mr. Boone was a former employee of the Utilities Department, but regardless of what Mr Boone said, it was wrong. Mr. and Mrs. Askew stated that they would withdraw their name from the petition asking for water, not because they are not for the water but because of the misrepresentation. J U L 5 1988 39 BOOK .73 179