3/12/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MAR 12 199 reports to DER, -because he felt the County is opening the door to over -committing capacity by charging impact fees for 250 gallons per day and reporting 200 gallons to the DER. Mr. Radell reminded the Board that Section 9, Paragraph E, collects an estimated impact fee and watches for 24 months to see how the project operates and if use is less than anticipated a fee will be refunded. He believed that kind of provision should also be applicable to large residential communities, mobile homes, et cetera, that would be applicable to apartments and condominiums on a master meter where when one family moves out and someone else moves in it does not change the general mix of the community in that system. He felt that type of provision would be fair and equitable and make sure you collect your impact fee, not more and not less. He recalled the discussion earlier in the meeting regarding a penalty provision for users of the system who pay an impact fee for a certain number of ERUs and then use more capacity. He felt the County should encourage people to conserve water by simply lowering the impact fee in cases where they use less than the original commitment. Chairman Bird indicated Section 17 provides for that but it says in no case will it be reduced to less than one ERU per customer. Mr. Radell estimated that the difference between what the County is charging and what the County is reporting to DER could be on the order of two hundred or two hundred fifty thousand dollars. He reminded the Board that the costs are passed on to the tenants in the park so the real benefit would not be to American Retirement Communities but rather to the tenants and the County would not lose out because they would have the extra capacity for more users. Chairman Bird cautioned that when we start making exceptions we must decide where to draw the line. He felt the consultants had developed a rate structure that, across the board, is fair and equitable. Mr. Radell described as galling the fact that an impact fee is charged for 250 gallons per day and the report to DER is 200 gallons per day. Chairman Bird suggested, rather than get into a debate, Mr. Hutchinson should address the three points made by Mr. Radell. Mr. Hutchinson addressed the first point relating to using historical data by stating that this same exact argument can be made for a neighborhood that does not happen to be on a master meter but which generally uses less water and they also would want to be placed in a separate sub -class or sub -category. He advised that we do have a master meter on this particular development. These are the same customers that wanted to be treated as 42