Laserfiche WebLink
Ernie Cox’s <br />Attorney stated his Firm has been engaged with staff to suggest some <br />improvements to the ordinance, as follows: <br /> <br /> <br />1.define any of the terms that do not have a natural meaning; <br /> <br />2.include a long term concurrency management system; <br /> <br />3.hold a workshop or meeting regarding projects that have capacity and do not <br />need the proportionate share, modifying the ordinance to “at the stage of PD” <br />to pay the impact fees from “at the stage of the building permit.” <br /> <br />Discussion ensued by the Commissioners regarding item 3, listed above. <br /> <br />Director Keating explained that the County has not adopted a long-term concurrency <br /> <br />management system and that is why it was not included in the ordinance. <br /> <br />th <br />Bob Swift <br />, 2145 14 Avenue, a local developer, liked Mr. Cox’s suggestions. He <br />was hoping the proportionate share ordinance and the pending ordinance could be linked, because <br />there is a lot of contradiction between the two. He saw the proportionate share ordinance as a very <br />effective tool to give the County a way to solve some of the existing issues and he urged the Board <br />to stay on track and move forward. <br /> <br />There was a lengthy discussion regarding linking the two ordinances. <br /> <br />Jerry Swanson <br />, 2300 Ocean Drive, a commercial developer, felt the proportionate <br />share ordinance would eliminate the problem that he had, of a developer not being able to build <br />because of a deficient link. He said staff misleads the public when they state most roads are taken <br />care of in the CIP when US 1 is not in the program. He was concerned that the Board is loosing the <br />common sense aspect, because a commercial developer needs to pay the impact fees now, not <br />later. <br />March 3, 2006 <br />6 <br />Public Workshop <br />Proportionate Share Ordinance <br /> <br />