My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/21/2006 (4)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2006
>
11/21/2006 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2022 3:12:47 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:11:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/21/2006
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
3034
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />John Williams, <br /> 1535 Smuggler’s Cove, thinks the fee would be an impact fee and he believes the <br />developers will challenge it. He suggested getting assurance from the proper attorneys that this fee could <br />be implemented legally. Widening the roads now would facilitate growth and he did not feel it necessary <br />to complete at the present time. <br /> <br />Joseph Paladin, <br /> 6450 Tropical Way, announced that several months ago he spoke against this <br />issue because: (1) It was not clear if the State would get it’s funding back; (2) It would cost taxpayers <br />thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000.00) in interest; and (3) Questioned the legality of how the money <br />would come out of the Impact Fee Fund. He recently changed his view because he found out that the <br />money would not come out of the fund and interest would be paid by the developers and builders. He <br />believed it would be a “real asset” to the community to widen the road and not lower the level of service. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bowden asked County Attorney Collins to make comments regarding the legality <br />of this procedure and the fees. <br /> <br />Attorney Collins suggested the fee be called a “special concurrency assessment fee” because the <br />County cannot go forward and develop unless they have the capacity improvement. Since the County <br />would be benefiting from it they would be paying a special assessment and the benefit would be tied to it. <br />He thought it to be a good solution and it would be defensible to charge the interest cost to those <br />benefiting from it by being allowed to proceed with the development in advance of our own program <br />schedule. Attorney Collins thought the County could defend the special fee assessed to the people who <br />are benefiting from the concurrency available and mentioned that this is an opportunity to get the State to <br />advance the program so it is not out of pocket. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wheeler affirmed they were trying to design something that would be conceptual <br />and he wanted the Board to take a position on this and move forward. <br /> <br /> November 21, 2006 <br />20 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.