Laserfiche WebLink
486 <br /> <br /> Mr. Bill Powlas, who lives outside the district, opposed the use of the <br />funds from the one-half cent (½¢) sales tax, stating that users in the district <br />should pay for the water. <br /> Mr. David Fudge, a resident of the district, supported a tax levy in the <br />district if it were the only way to get water in the district. He stated <br />the need for water and sewer to attract new industry to the county. <br /> Mr. carl Walker, a resident of the district, opposed a property tax levy <br />and supported the use of the one-half cent (½¢) sales tax revenue. He also <br />expressed concern that the proposed lines were not large enough. <br /> Mrs. Betty Graves, a resident of the district, supported the use of the <br />one-half cent (½¢) sales tax for the water project. <br /> Mr. Phil Meacham of Kannapolis supported the levy of a four cents (4¢) <br />property tax in the water and sewer district, stating that persons in <br />the Kannapolis Sanitary District and Royal Oaks Sanitary District were paying <br />taxes to support their district. He stated it would be unfair to use the <br />revenue from the one-half cent (½¢) sales tax to increase the value of <br />property located within the water and sewer district. Mr. Meacham also <br />stated that persons in the district would recover enough from reduced fire <br />insurance rates to pay the tax levy. <br /> Mr. Ralph Bonds, a resident of the district, opposed a four cents (4¢) <br />tax levy for the district. He stated it would, be a most unfair tax on the <br />district as it would be levied on animals and farm equipment as well as <br />the land. <br /> Mr. Manuel Kiser proposed that the people living in the district be <br />allowed to choose either a user fee or tax levy to repay the water bond. <br />He stated he had a problem with using the sales tax revenue for this pUrpose. <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Barnhardt, seconded by Commissioner Nash <br />and unanimously carried, the Board postponed a final decision on repaying <br />the water bond until the Board receives the final report from the Water <br />and Sewer Study Commission and to take that report into consideration in <br />making a decision. <br /> Mr. Bill Bonny, Chairman of the Water and Sewer Study Commission, <br />stated the report should be ready for presentation at the regular Board <br />meeting on February 20, 1984. He reported that the Study Commission had <br />concluded there was a definite need for water and sewer in the county and <br />had determined there was no fair way to finance the water project. Mr. <br />Bonny stated that tentative recommendations of the Study Commission included <br />an increase in sales tax by an act of the General Assembly or a combination <br />of trying to keep the prQperty tax increase in the district to a minimum <br />with a slight increase in the user fees. <br /> There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting <br />was adjourned. <br /> <br />Clerk to the Board <br /> <br /> <br />