3/19/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Director Pinto advised that the park owner had the option of paying all the impact fees up front at $1250 per unit and then worry about how he was going to pass it through. In conclusion of staff's recommendation, Director Pinto reiterated that staff does not recommend crediting anyone with the $143,000 unless we go back and recalculate what the base facility charges would have been at that time. Commissioner Scurlock asked if it would be illegal if the Board chose to give a credit, and Attorney Vitunac advised that the other users of the utility system would have to make up the shortfall. To the extent that the system cannot give away free service, he would say there is some issue out there. However, without that type of argument being presented today by someone with more facts, he would say that the Board has that option. Director Pinto pointed out that amount of money was divided equally between water and wastewater and represented something for water and for wastewater, and Commissioner Scurlock interjected that if it is determined that the park owner can pass through the charges, he can only pass on through what he paid. Attorney Vitunac felt that both park owners have washed their hands of the money and given it to the County. It is now a County asset, but if the County wanted to give it back on a credit basis for each of the 509 units which was the basis for which the money was collected, they could do so. Commissioner Wheeler asked if the County would have the right to return the $143,000 to the tenants since the developer was the one that paid it to the County, and Attorney Vitunac felt that if the Board wants to credit the money back, it should go as a credit towards the units from which the money was first derived. There were 509 units times $227 plus $27,000 R&R fund, and the County did give the mobile home park a credit that could be used only against those paid units. He felt the Board could do that by virtue of this large audience here today, who believe they have a legitimate complaint. Arguably, they have an issue in court that we could say that this is a means of settling the issue. There is no real utility logic for giving it back. He felt Director Pinto's argument for keeping it is legally correct, but in view of the legitimate concerns of a lot of people here who thought they were vested, they have the right to settle the issue by compromising on $143,000. Chairman Bird thanked those in attendance for their courtesy, patience and cooperation in listening to staff's recommendation. Ed Nelson, president of Countryside North Homeowners' Association, Inc., representing 1050 residents or 100 eligible BOOK o 36 ' =",