AG 2001 11 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

219 Section 3: In the event a person who owns acreage with a home wants to connect to the lines the assessment fee will be $500.00 for the home only. In the event the property is developed further, the fee schedule in Section 1 will be in effect. Section 4: All revenues generated by this assessment fee shall be used in the following manner: The County will set ~p a Water and Sewer Capital Improvement Fund to provide g~ants for the extension of new lines or upgrading of existing lines within the County. Mr. Marshall reported that Mr. Blair Bennett, Deputy County Manager for Administration, had reco~u~ended that Section 4 be amended to read as follows: "...The County will track, reserve and earmark funds to provide grants for the extension of new lines or upgrad%ng of existing lines within the County." Mr. Clifton stated the County pays to extend water and sewer lines to new school sites and contractors then connect to those lines as development occurs in the area. Be explained the proposed connection fee would be a way for the County to recover some of those costs and help fund future water and sewer extensions. Mr. Hartsell advised that the Water and Sewer District still exists, although it not funded and owns nothing. Also, he explained the proposed fee would be a "capital recovery" fee. At 7:48 p.m., Chairman Fennel opened the public hearing on the proposed water and sewer charges and asked if anyone wished to speak either for or against the proposed charges. The Public Hearing Notice was published in THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNE on October 6, 2001. Mr. Tip McCachern, who owns property near Rocky River, questioned when the proposed utility charges would be payable. Mr. Marshall explained the charges would be payable at tke time of the issuance of a building permit and the individual taps onto. an existing utility line. There was lengthy discussion regarding the proposed utility fee. Issues addressed by the Board included the following: (1) Current utility fees estimated at $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 that a person must pay before getting permits for a home; (2) Ownership by the retail water provider (usually Concord or Kannapolis) of those water line extensions that are paid for by the County; (3) Benefit to property owners when utility lines are extended in their area; (4) Use of County general taxes to extend utility lines and the opportunity to recoger some of those ~osts from persons who will be using the lines; (5) Establishment of a fee for the entire county rather than in designated areas; (6) Waiver of the fee for low-and-moderate income persons; and {7) Earmarking of the utility fees that are collected to pay for future utility extensions. The Board also discussed the need to consolidate all raw water supply facilities in the county. Board members requested additional 'information concerning the current utility fees and the funds that would be generated if the proposed fees were put into place throughout the county rather than the designated area. There was no one else present to address the Board, and Chairman Fennel closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. UPON ~TION of Vice Chairman Carruth, seconded by Co~missioner Freeman and unanimously carried, the Board deferred consideration of the proposed utility charges until the work session on Nove~er 5, 2001-with staff to provide additional information at that time. Mr. John Day, Deputy County Manager for Operations, reviewed the Board's denial of Time Warner Cable's request to increase cable rates for 2001 and the Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC} remanding the decision to the Board for reconsideration within established FCC guidelines. He reported the Board had received the rate review findings at its February 2001 meeting from the County's Cable Television Consultant (Sandra Montgomery of the Centralina Council of Governments) indicating the