Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
To Mr. Batte: I STRONGLY DISAGREE.
1. Expansion of asset2. 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!
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.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.
Feels Like: 79°
Feels Like: 75°
Feels Like: 83°
Share your photos and videos with our online community. Take a look »
View a webcam of the Judge S.S. Jolley Bridge and other places on Marco Island.
Sign up to read an electronic replica of the Marco Eagle newspaper.
Get your local news anywhere you go from the Marco Eagle. Download app »
See photos from local anglers with their biggest catch of the day. Submit your photos.
Our radar shows current conditions and possible severe weather.