Laserfiche WebLink
_I <br />BOOK 61 F'GEL 366 <br />get these escrow funds back to where they are supposed to be. He <br />believed Mr. Muller's problem as to whether -this was paid at CO <br />or when the units were sold was simply a misunderstanding about <br />occupancy; the CO is just a certificate saying they can be <br />occupied. <br />Commissioner Wodtke agreed with need to get the delinquent <br />monies as soon as possible, but wondered if we have the right to <br />escalate the amount due to comply with the current ordinance if <br />they do not pay. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised he has only read one of the <br />franchises, and that could be an issue, but we are taking the <br />position we can do this. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed most of those involved have <br />indicated their willingness to work with us, <br />Mr. Muller requested that when staff looks at these <br />franchises they look at all the options the county has with <br />regard to purchasing the treatment unit. He felt some of the <br />paragraphs are conflicting and that the verbiage should be <br />clarified. <br />Peter Robinson noted that he has such an old franchise that <br />he doesn't have to pay*up any money, but he did agree the County <br />needs to look at a couple of things. In regard to collecting at <br />building permit time versus CO, he suggested taking a letter of <br />credit at the time of obtaining the building permit and cash at <br />the time of obtaining a CO. In regard to the county operating <br />package plants, he noted that they do this in Orange County and <br />it works well, but they don't collect the impact fees until they <br />actually -hook you up. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously <br />approved the three recommendations set out in <br />staff memo dated April 15, 1986, with the <br />80 <br />