My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/14/1987
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1987
>
9/14/1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:59:20 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 1:57:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/14/1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
� � r <br />Other Immediate Long Term Debt Needs <br />Court Facility <br />Downtown Redevelopment <br />Additional Administrative Offices <br />Health Facility <br />Jail Phases IV and V <br />Road Infrastructure <br />Development of Additional County Parks <br />Wetlands Purchase <br />North Beach Utility Purchase <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if the 2 million shown for Indian <br />River Boulevard North is net after impact fees are used as that <br />north extension obviously is going to require substantially more <br />than 2 million dollars. <br />OMB Director Baird advised that is the amount they felt they <br />might be short as far as cash flow is concerned. They did not <br />take impact fees into consideration as it is too difficult to <br />determine what they will amount to because of the many factors <br />involved; also, you can't bond based on impact fees - you can <br />bond on gas tax monies. The 2 million is what we would have to <br />borrow if we didn't have enough built in our gas tax money. <br />Based on our cash flow projections, if we used all the gas tax <br />revenue in Fund 109, we would probably need 2 million additional, <br />and we would bond the gas tax revenues to cover the 2 million. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted that you can use impact fees to <br />retire the debt; you just can't use them as a primary pledge. He <br />continued to discuss impact fees and zones, and noted that we may <br />be required by the new law to acquire R/W and to pay for it, and <br />what we projected originally did not include large sums for R/W <br />acquisition. The Public Works Director has advised him that R/W <br />acquisition makes up almost 50% of the cost of the project; so, <br />we may have to direct staff to work with our consultant to come <br />up with revised impact fee numbers that include R/W acquisition <br />or else be faced with a substantial shortfall. The Chairman felt <br />staff should move immediately to revisit our impact fee <br />structure. <br />L_ SEP 141987 <br />4 - aov :. 69 PAGE X28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.