10/28/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Boa 66 P,�,UE 265 _ Commissioner Bird felt the question is the interpretation of the agreement as he would interpret it that the fees paid were re-lated only to utilities. Chairman Scurlock agreed there is a lack of communication; he believed when a citizen pays this, he feels it covers everything, and staff realizes we have various impact fees. Commissioner Lyons pointed out that the receipt indicates that it is for sewer impact and contribution in aid of constructions and makes no mention of anything but utility matters. Attorney Vitunac could see where the confusion arose, but did not feel the applicant should get his money back. The agreement right in its title states that it is "For Certain Utility Installations." There are a multitude of fees to be paid, including a building permit fee, and from the applicant's point of view, he should not have had to pay that either because of this language. Also, in the discussion he had with the applicant or his professional nothing was ever mentioned about traffic impact fees, building fees, etc. Chairman Scurlock noted that the agreement estimates $8,500 for the improvements, and if it came in at a lesser amount, say $5,500, would he receive those dollars back? Utilities Director Pinto advised that when staff negotiates that, the agreement is final, and that's why they say there won't be any other fees. Also, if the amount comes in higher after it is bid, they do not go back to the applicant and ask him for more money. He felt it should be mentioned that in that agreement it calls for a requirement to dedicate some property, which it now has been determined they will not need. Mr. Vatland emphasized that he made an agreement and shook hands on it - the fees were negotiated, and they made a deal. When the agreement was printed up, it was put on a utility agreement; the check was made out to the county, and it was 65