5/16/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

800K 95 PA�� 104 Although it is felt the hydrant fee should be eliminated as a District expense, if the fee is retained, it would only seem fair that the District be authorized to charge back to the various utility entities a "readiness to use fee" as has been done in another jurisdiction to offset the cost to the District. The District would be receptive and willing to paint and maintain the hydrants by the on duty crews within their respective response area or one individual could be employed to do this full time as has been done in the past at a much less expense than the $308,830 being paid now or the $150,340 anticipated expense, for a total of $459,170. Given the maximum 3 mill cap for the District in the consolidation referendum, this enormous expense, when added to the G&A charge of $225,000 and constitutional officer expense of $284,941, has an enormous effect of $969,111 on the District's ability to purchase needed apparatus and other equipment to continue to maintain the ISO rating and the level of service now being provided by the fire and EMS divisions. A recommendation or suggestion would be for the Board to authorize staff to consider alternatives to the hydrant fee being paid to the County Utilities Department and direct the appropriate staff to meet with the various municipalities with the goal to eliminate the fee expense to the District or research the possibility of a "readiness to use fee" being imposed to offset the expense to the District. Chairman Macht found this issue extremely interesting and it appeared to him that it was a means of providing funding from one department to another, to make one department look better than maybe it deserved to look. The real downside, now that municipalities have gotten into the act, is that we are sending money outside our budgeting circle. Administrator Chandler advised that this whole area had been previously identified and was being looked at in conjunction with• Budget to bring a recommendation back to the Board. He declared it had been fairly common practice in prior years for a utility, whether it be a county or a municipality, to charge the fire department a fire hydrant rental and he explained the varied logic used. It was his intent to address the needs of both sides and bring back a recommendation during the budget process. 78 May 16, 1995