3/12/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 12 1991 Mr. Pinto said the location and who it serves determines whether the County itself will take over the operation of that facility, if it is needed. When questioned regarding who should pay for it, Mr. Pinto said the County's deal is with the owner and whether the owner looks on it as an improvement is his determination, not the County's. Mr. Strang asked to see correspondence between the County and the park owner and Mr. Pinto offered him an opportunity to look in the file. Ruth Sullivan, President of the Indian River Property Owners' Association, came before the Board and stated she had looked at the proposed ordinance and rate schedule and was concerned about the establishment of a minimum monthly bill. Looking at the rates two years down the linejanyone that has a line and reserved ERUs will be paying a monthly minimum bill of $25.85 whether they use a drop of anything or not. If there are no lines in front of their residence but they reserved an ERU they will be paying a minimum bill of $14.93 a month and that is with no usage at all in the system. She felt, in establishing these rates, the County developed a two-edged sword against the low-income people in the community in this County because of the minimum bill and the twenty percent charge over actual usage. It says it is to control water use but she considers it hogwash; dollars are being collected for water that people are not using. The theory is if people reduce their use by 20% they won't get a boost of 20% but people living in mobile homes and small homes, because they want to save money in their day to day lives, they have already reduced their usage. They cannot reduce further and they are going to receive a 20% charge over actual usage. They cannot avoid it. She then brought up a situation in her area where the County is assessing by the square foot for installation of sewer and water, not the running front foot of the property, and there is a lady who faces $20,000 assessment. Ms. Sullivan understood the reason for square footage assessment for drainage because you look at the overall piece of property and they have to drain a given volume of land, but when it is sewer or water it entails excavation to the property and the pipe and whatever the labor costs are for installation, and that is what we should be charging. She has heard the argument that a large piece of property must have large impact fees to cover development but these people are going to be hit that way even if they don't develop. In this case, it is a single widow lady who is sitting on a large piece of property but she doesn't intend to develop it. It's her 44 0