Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

ajm3s writes:

To Mr. Batte: I STRONGLY DISAGREE.

Why?

1. Expansion of asset
2. Asset larger than required

Consequently, we have a significant portion of an asset that is and will not be utilized. Just like a portion of Marco Island is not utilized as evident in the form of vacant lots? So all un-utilized properties should share in the un-utilized cost of utilities?

Is un-utilized even a word? If not, it is certain a reality on Marco Island. I hope you understand the reality.

That is why the Cost of Service is not fair and equitable because it deals only with users and not potential users.

Again, from the article:

"Batte said the city shouldn’t charge property owners if they’re not using the water or sewer connection."

And Mr. Batte states:

“To me it’s a matter of unfairness, quite frankly,” he said. “You’re trying to levy a charge on people who don’t live here to pay for people who do. We’re charging people who aren’t using our system just because we upgraded it.”

Widen your perspective of cost and burden of cost. It is greater than cost of service!

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features