Laserfiche WebLink
° <br />b®r1K+t �^iM1 f.�.�l". tom, 6� <br />' sYY� <br />structure change, it is usually always prospective and not retroactive. The concern is that if <br />an exception is made for this organization at this time, it may be necessary to make <br />retroactive adjustments for others, whether it be commercial development or single family. <br />Mr. Barkett felt the problem was that the ordinance makes no distinction between a <br />non-residential project and a residential project. Their development is master -metered. The <br />ordinance provides that if a non-residential project pays a full impact fee and 2 years later <br />finds it has used less than the number of ERU's originally charged for, it can come to the <br />County for a reimbursement. He argued that there is no logical distinction between that and <br />a master -metered apartment complex. <br />Administrator Chandler recounted the arguments of the mobile home park owners, as <br />an example, which was similar to Mr. Barkett's. This and other incidents led to the <br />recommendation to have a study done. He added that nothing has been determined saying <br />the current rate structure is not equitable or not satisfactory; the results of the study may <br />come back saying that the current rates are equitable and satisfactory. <br />Mr. Barkett pointed out that this apartment complex is deed restricted to one or two <br />occupants, unlike mobile homes which can have as many occupants as are willing to live <br />together. He added other arguments and commented that if logic is to be used, he would <br />win, but if the Commission is just wanting to wait until the rate study comes out, there was <br />nothing he could do about that. He mentioned that he had discussion with County Attorney <br />Vitunac that the Board could agree to recoupment if they so direct staff. <br />County Attorney Vitunac found a distinction between giving a rate reduction in the <br />future; he thought they could not do that. The Board was imminently correct that you cannot <br />go back and give reduction in rates or they would bankrupt the system. The only room for <br />compromise here is that the Board could buy back excess capacity purchased by any <br />customer of the system other than a single family unit. The present ordinance allows that <br />and it does not affect the County's rates or financial sheet, because that excess capacity is <br />available for resale. The ordinances do not allow buy-back of multi -family capacity even <br />if it is in excess, but that ordinance could be changed. <br />Mr. Barkett suggested they could invoke the pending ordinance doctrine and direct <br />staff to look at it and enter into a developers agreement. <br />Lengthy discussion was held wherein Commissioners Ginn, Eggert, and Macht <br />expressed support for staff's recommendation that the current ordinance provisions be <br />applied and allow the "User Charge Revision Team" to review, among other things, the ERU <br />February 17, 1998 <br />44 <br />ID 0 <br />