Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Home RSS

Utility expansion plan moves forward

Council still to look at large-parcel and pre-pay discounts

May 10, 2013

Plans that would expand utilities into the next service area while also stabilizing rates for existing customers nudged forward Wednesday with some modifications....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-10-13 7:18 AM

Ann Arnott surely must realize that installing utilities in a new subdivision is quite different than working in an existing neighborhood, with Cap and Cover requirements, MOT needs,and the greater demolition cost, etc. Also, Cape Coral's limestone adds to the cost.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 9:19 AM

Leave it to the government to charge you over twice the cost over the private sector. This madness must stop.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 10:26 AM

@djraal: Do real facts ever come out of you or do your constantly tell lies?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 6:24 PM

If you have a flat tire and you stop your car, wait a while, and then resume your trip your tire is still flat. We stopped the UEP, waited and resolved few of the issues and started up again. The large parcel issue is still unsettled. The ordinance regarding large parcel assessment was changed in 2006(?). It was the “frontage” method. Indeed our storm water tax is based on ERU frontage method. If a property is 5 times the width of a standard lot (along the road) you pay for 5 ERUs. To demand payment based on the square footage of parcel is criminal behavior! A single home on a three lot site or a 40 lot site does not have a greater impact on the system. To install the water main across the front of a parcel that is 5 times wider is exactly 5 times the cost. On commercial parcels or large scale residential projects assessment should be adjusted at time of development.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 9:42 AM

The square footage method is punitive to property owners and greatly benefits the city’s coffers. For large undeveloped or under-developed parcels this method essentially results in a “take” of the property owner’s equity. The whole point of the frontage assessment method is that wider properties pay for the amount of water main that crosses the front of their property. If the expansion project is installing water mains for 40 single lots (ERUs) and your property is 5 lots wide (road frontage) you’ll pay for 1/8 (12.5%) of the cost. Using the square foot method, say in the 40 lot project your property is 10 acres and the rest are ¼ acre lots. 35 quarter acre lots=8.75 acres. By square footage the large parcel pays 53.3% of the assessed cost of the entire 40 lots. On 10 acres more homes could be built, you say, true but the cost to install the water main across the front of the property is still only 5 lots wide.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 9:45 AM

So using the previous example lets plug in dollars. If the assessed value is to be $20,000 per lot (ERU) 40 lots would generate $800,000. Using square footage, 18.75 acres would generate $1,499,553. So $699,533 assessed on the 10 acre parcel (5 lots frontage) and $800,000 assessed on the other 35 lots. Like the song says, “I got the pistol so I’ll keep the pesos, yeah that seems fair! “

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 1:39 PM

Actually we really should wait until all the people who can afford it to do it(never) or take more time to investigate more and then the election is over and then we can move on to another level, or wait...we could wait until we actually find out what the final numbers will finally be. Wait, look, listen, watch. Think we have been doing that for years without any new revelations from the No twins. Oh well. It's Cape Coral.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 2:24 PM

I am not against having a utilities expansion. I am against this UEP due to the insane cost. There should be legislation in place that does not allow a municipality to force a utility project on people unless it is reasonably close to the average costs of projects in other parts of Florida. If they can not get the cost within that range then put it on the ballot and let the citizens decide.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 2:36 PM

The water should have been in the ground before they ever let the first developer build the first house. Then all that would have been necessary is hooking up each home as it is built . To have a city on this scale (one of the largest in the US) on septic and well system was done by the city council of past out of pure GREED. And this crowd is no better now all they want to do is get more money so they can spend more.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 2:41 PM

IMPACT FEE"S = Ripping off the citizens. That is why the government likes IMPACT FEE's, they just pull a number out of a hat (one they think they can get away with, and the property owners are screwed by the people that are supposed to be working for them. Limiting the power of the city council is the only way to reign them in. It MUST HAPPEN NOW

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 3:03 PM

There is a GAC, Gulf America Corporation in Rio Ricco, Arizona. They did the same thing there with the water/sewer utilities. They put it in for 22,000 building lots. It prompted the Federal Government to get involved and a State OF Rhode Island law suit to return investment money to the residents of RI. The main home builder their was AVATAR HOMES (can you imagine?). Today AVATAR HOMES< INC> is closed, kaput, fini, adios, BANKRUPT. For the ones who disagree please look up litigation between federal government and AVATAR (GAC) or State of Rhode Island and Avatar, Inc., Rio Ricco, AZ..

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web