My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/23/2005 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2005
>
08/23/2005 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2018 3:00:52 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 5:59:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/23/2005
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
3032
Book and Page
129, 370-415
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
249
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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 />long range planning, a model that includes counting all <br />trips should be available and ready to react. <br /> <br />13.D.2. COMMISSIONER WESLEY S. DAVIS - EMERGENCY ITEM – <br />REVIEW OF IMPACT FEE INCREASE EXEMPTION <br />AFFIDAVITS <br />(Clerk’s Note: This item was heard prior to Item 10.) <br /> <br />Commissioner Davis asked Assistant County Attorney DeBraal to review the <br />impact fee exemption affidavits. He wanted to allow anything that had a valid contract and a <br />cancelled check before July 1, 2005 to continue under the former impact fee schedule. Many <br />contracts had a built-in clause that, in the event of an act of God or an increase in the impact fee, <br />they would be able to pass that increase on to the buyer. Several applicants were turned down and <br />denied that had this clause in their contract. Out of 360 contracts 50% will not be impacted by the <br />new ordinance; 33% will have the fees waived; and the remaining 17% need more information <br />about the cancelled check. Half of the contracts had a specific clause stating that any increase in <br />governmental fees, assessments, or impact fees would be passed on to the buyer. Also of concern, <br />some homeowners were financed by a lending institution and needed to borrow an additional <br />amount. <br />Attorney DeBraal explained that the Ordinance included a “savings clause” that <br />requires a valid contract executed before July 1, 2005, with a cancelled check showing deposit <br />within a reasonable amount of time; if the contract was impaired by the increase in impact fees the <br />fees would be waived. <br /> <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Davis, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Neuberger for <br />discussion, to readdress Land Use Amendment Chapter <br />23 <br />AUGUST 23, 2005 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.