Opinion ID: 1700088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: are these private ventures paying what they cost the district?

Text: In my view, it does not matter what the District receives in lease rentals, none of this money should be used to defray municipal charges or costs. Rather, lease rental income should be considered separate and apart from any obligation to render such services. It seems fundamental to me that municipal services should be paid for by the people who receive them and by no one else. It also seems fundamental to me that these costs should not be paid with the District's own money, derived from the sale of irreplaceable land. The District has had another view, as I have demonstrated in tedious detail. Yet, it also appears that, including these lease rentals, the subdivisions still do not pay what it costs the taxpayers of the five counties to render these services. Each year the District submits to the State Budget Commission a request for authority to spend money. The general manager and fiscal officer are the persons who are primarily responsible for preparation of these documents. This is what they stated in each of the requests submitted to the Budget Commission in the years 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982: There are approximately 4,000 citizens living on property developed by the District. The furnishing of utility service, street maintenance, and police and fire protection constitute a major portion of the Agency's budget. [Emphasis added] [18] The accounting firm's figures show that in 1966 the Operation and Maintenance Fund spent $472,876; in 1971 $580,000; in 1973, $645,000; in 1975, $987,125. In 1980 it was $2,185,000 and in 1981 it was $2,429,375, a jump of $240,000 over the previous year. Can there be any doubt these private developments account for at least one-half of this figure? If we take the District's own word, they cost more than one-half. How does this compare with the income? Let us examine the last two years for which figures were given at the trial. FISCAL YEAR ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1980 Total Operation and Maintenance Expenditures $2,185,000 Receipts from Subdivisions Sewer Charges 70,584 Water Sales 142,572 _______ 213,156 Lease Rentals 599,827 _______ Total 812,983 One-half of Operation and Maintenance Expenditures 1,092,500 Less Total Income from Subdivisions 812,983 _________ Deficit $ 279,517 ========= FISCAL YEAR ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1981 Total Operation and Maintenance Expenditures $2,429,375 Receipts from Subdivisions Sewer Sales 76,941 Water Sales 156,724 _______ 233,665 Lease Rentals 582,902 _______ Total 816,567 One-half of Operation and Maintenance Expenditures 1,214,688 Less Total Income from Subdivisions 816,567 _________ Deficit $ 398,121 ========= Omitting the lease rentals in 1981, the subdivisions cost the District, and the taxpayers of the five counties, approximately one million dollars more than they paid in. [19] It must be conceded that we do not really know what these subdivisions are costing the District and the taxpayers of five counties. Just as significant, the reason we do not know is that the District has not even made a minimal effort to keep records which would accurately allocate the cost. No study was ever made, indeed, no records were kept from which it could be determined the cost to the District of furnishing these municipal services to the lessees.