Agenda - 01-16-1997 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Councilmember Capowski felt that it was important that the non-benefiting parties not be assessed. Chair Carey suggested looking at the specific language proposed. He repeated that-he could not agree to eliminate the last two paragraphs in 1.D 3. He commented on the August 22nd memo from Julie Andresen and Jay Bryan. He stated that he did not have a problem with the language in 1.D.2 although this process was not intended to influence planning and growth issues. He felt that everything after"e.g." was unnecessary because it is not intended to supersede any land use agreements or jurisdictional plans. He suggested that#3 Equity Issues could also be acceptable as a partial substitute for the original paragraph. He suggested the following change service fees, special district revenues, taxes, etc. And such costs s4a4-mom be recovered over time with an appropriate interest rate. It is understood that when the Health Director determines that a public health emergency exists, it may be necessary for the County to use general tax revenues iF; heaFdhip Garse-s to reduce risk to public health_ Commissioner Gordon felt that a core issue is whether it is enough to recover the tax revenue without thinking of other costs. Councilmember Capowski asked how the Commissioners would react if the COuncil asked for a countywide general tax payer subsidy for the installation of sewer in the Morgan Creek Development. Chair Carey indicated that the Commissioners would consider it like they do all other proposals within the context of their water and sewer policy. He mentioned that funding for both Piney Mountain and the Efland project was almost completely reimbursed by the benefiting parties. Councilmember Andresen commented that adding the word "taxes" undoes the paragraph. Also, changing the wording from shall to may does the same thing. She could not agree with those changes. Jay Bryan agreed with Councilmember Andresen. Chair Carey suggested editing as much as possible on this document and then sending it to the individual Boards after the attorneys have reviewed. The Boards should be advised as to the areas of disagreement on this Task Force. Pat Davis suggested forwarding the revised document to the elected officials with the equity issue included with Option 1 and Option 2. He suggested in 1.B.1 that the wording be changed from "boundaries for future public. utility development..." He also suggested that a 4th purpose could be "to provide greater predictability in long range capital improvements financial planning. If you have uncertainty about when and where funds will be spent it can raise serious, long range issues.