9/8/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

available. Mr. Diggs' case may be an exception, but in order to accommodate him we would have to change our whole method of calculating the street lighting district, which would present a problem. County Administrator Jim Chandler advised that every street lighting district on the list is charged on a per parcel/acre basis. He recounted that two years ago this same argument was raised, and the Board concluded that while no method is 100 percent equitable, the per parcel/acre method is the most equitable. Administrator Chandler gave the example of the Gifford Street Lighting District where the owner of undeveloped property was charged on a per acre basis. Chairman Bird noted that the per parcel/acre method is used consistently because the theory is that a larger piece of property derives more benefit. Even though there may be only one residence on the property, there is potential for more value. He also explained that street lighting in a subdivision creates additional value to all the property, and if it increases the value one percent for a parcel which is three -tenths of an acre, then Mr. Diggs receives ten times that value and yet is paying only three times the rate. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board is the Equalization Board. In order for Mr. Diggs to get relief, he has the burden to prove his special circumstance. That proof could be a diagram of the property or something to show that this is an exception to the rule. Administrator Chandler noted that if the Board were to make an adjustment on this parcel, the entire street lighting district would be affected and the cost would have to be recalculated for all the property owners, because the County merely passes on the actual costs of the power and the amortization of the poles and fixtures. The County went through an exhaustive study and had discussions with FPL and the City of Vero Beach in an attempt to have them deal directly with the property owners for street lights, but we could not arrive at an agreement. Director Baird pointed out that it is too late this year to make a change. He contended that Mr. Diggs makes a good case, but everyone in that district could make the same argument because each parcel is a different size. Mr. Diggs suggested that if it is too late to get relief this year, perhaps the Board can put it on the agenda for next year and remedy the situation for the one percent of the owners who do not get fair representation or service charges. 27 BOOK 90 PAGE 4,95