My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/16/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
12/16/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:22:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
12/16/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
Attorney Vitunac explained this is an ordinance that we <br />requested our own bond counsel to draw up which would be used in <br />the Sebastian sewer projectand would allow special assessment in <br />lieu of impact fees to be a valid purpose for issuing of bonds. <br />That is the procedure we have been discussing with Sebastian <br />whereby people voluntarily agree to pay the County impact fee for <br />their sewer system instead of having an actual assessment placed <br />against their property by the value of the front feet, etc. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if we don't permit all this now, <br />and Attorney Vitunac noted that this ordinance would authorize <br />this procedure to be used anywhere, not just Sebastian. We have <br />a county standard assessment resolution, but he felt it would be <br />better if the ordinance mentioned the procedure precisely and so <br />did bond counsel. <br />Commissioner Wheeler requested that the Attorney clarify the <br />advantage of impact fees versus special assessment, and Attorney <br />Vitunac explained that with this method as a source for bonding, <br />it would allow 1,000 or more different people to get the benefit <br />of a 20 year payment of their $1,250. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt the key is that our impact fees are <br />insufficient for us to fund up front. This procedure allows us <br />to get the money up front and do the improvement, and the <br />individual then can pay over a period of time. <br />Commissioner Eggert raised a question as to whether notice <br />is to be sent by certified mail, and Attorney Vitunac stated that <br />unless the ordinance specifically calls for certified mail, <br />notice will be sent by regular mail as has been our policy. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked if this ever has caused a problem, <br />and the Chairman advised that it has not because so far this all <br />has been of a voluntary nature. He stated that he would have no <br />objection to requiring certified notice. <br />Attorney Vitunac pointed out thatwnre might have to send out <br />a thousand letters and this could be very expensive. In any <br />event notice is published and an affidavit is required that <br />67 <br />DEC16 1986 1 <br />DOOM 66 F 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.