Laserfiche WebLink
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, <br />SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to authorize <br />staff to consider alternatives to the hydrant <br />fee being paid to the County Utilities <br />Department and direct the appropriate staff to <br />meet with the various municipalities with the <br />goal to eliminate the fee expense to the <br />District or research the possibility of a <br />"readiness to use fee" being imposed to <br />offset the expense to the District. <br />Under discussion, County Attorney Vitunac reminded the Board <br />that our bonds say we "shall not provide free service" and the <br />problem is that everyone who is protected by a fire hydrant is not <br />on the County utility system, so water is being paid for by the <br />utility customers who are different from the fire hydrant users. <br />Commissioner Bird asked how it was done here compared to more <br />sophisticated counties. <br />Utility Services Director Terry Pinto advised that the utility <br />customers pay for the flushing, because it is directly related to <br />the utility customers. Fire protection should not be charged just <br />to a utility customer because those who share the possible use of <br />a hydrant might not be utility customers and it would be grossly <br />inequitable. The charge is for capacity which has to 'be constantly <br />maintained whether it is being used or not. <br />Administrator Chandler cited practices in other areas of the <br />state and recounted various elements to consider before bringing a <br />recommendation to the Board. Director Pinto argued that the cost <br />of fire protection for the community would be hidden by shifting <br />the cost to the other side. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the <br />motion carried unanimously. <br />79 BOOK 95 PAGE 105 <br />May 16, 1995 <br />