Laserfiche WebLink
EOOK W I -AGE 452 <br />Street SW and he has lived there since 1981. Mr. Jacobs does not <br />oppose the water project but his is not a substandard lot described <br />as a public health hazard; adjacent to those parts of the project <br />that do need public water. The average assessments for these <br />parcels are probably less than $2,000; however, Mr. Jacobs' <br />assessment for 2 acres which contains one single-family regular 4 - <br />bedroom home, is $13,272.99. Mr. Pinto will tell you that the <br />assessments are on a per square foot basis which is a good basis if <br />you have equal uses for the parcels. When you look at a larger <br />parcel that could be divided or subdivided, a per square foot basis <br />makes sense because that property can be subdivided into many small <br />parcels and the cost per parcel when it is subdivided becomes the <br />same as everybody else's cost. Those larger parcels are subject to <br />development and must comply with the Comp Plan by placing those <br />areas in an urban service district rather than an outside district. <br />Mr. Jacobs cannot subdivide his property as his home is in the <br />middle of 2 acres and he cannot create additional lots to reduce <br />the per unit cost of these water lines. Mr. Jacobs is obviously in <br />the minority because the vast majority of the people here are <br />living on smaller lots and they are going to have smaller <br />assessments. Mr. Jacobs' impact to the water system on his 2 -acre <br />parcel, however, is no different than the impact of a 75 -foot or <br />50 -foot lot with a home on it. Only the new lots that are <br />developing can be forced to hook up as they develop. Despite the <br />fact that we have identified public health risks, you are not <br />forcing people to hook up, you are just forcing them to pay for the <br />water lines so they are available at some point if they voluntarily <br />hook up or tf, under your ordinances, a situation is triggered <br />through a building permit or otherwise, which would force them to <br />hook up. In Mr. Jacobs' case, the water lines are not going to be <br />far from his home. In the event he sells his property in the <br />future or decides to apply for building permits to expand the use <br />of his property, the County could, at that time, force him to hook <br />up and pay his impact fee, together with the cost of the assessment <br />for the water lines; in other words, the $13,000 cost would have to <br />be factored into the other costs. At this point, this is a <br />tremendous burden upon him to pay this amount of money just for a <br />water line to be run when his impact is very minimal and the chance <br />of recovering the money through increased value of his property or <br />through the use of it or subdivision is virtually nonexistent. For <br />the smaller lots, there is no question that their assessment cost <br />probably will be recovered by the increase in value to their <br />property but it's not the same proportional increase to Mr. Jacobs' <br />OCTOBER 4, 1994 24 <br />