My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/11/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
9/11/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:46 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:43:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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
(2) There needs to be a mechanism for refunding front end <br />impact fees when subsequent development plans change, i.e., if <br />you build Phase ["and Phase II and decide not to do Phase Ill. He <br />believed this would speak towards encouragement of not <br />overbuilding. <br />Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we must design our <br />facilities based on projected demand. We rely on good faith, and <br />it could be a problem for us if there were a dramatic change in <br />customers available to accept the service. <br />Director Keating advised that we have changed this since it <br />was initially presented. We have got 3 types of concurrency <br />certificates - conceptual, initial, and final. We first had this <br />set up that to get the 5 year vesting you had to sign a waiver of <br />ever getting your impact fees back, but we have since changed <br />that -to reflect that is just appropriate for traffic impact fees <br />because we realize that utility impact fees are essentially <br />handled that way right now. <br />Commissioner Scurlock further explained that in regard to <br />expansion, what our financial people are trying to find is a <br />mechanism for having a pool of funds which would allow the county <br />to take the initiative to.build some capital improvements without <br />anybody reserving. The way we are doing it right now, everything <br />is reserved up front. <br />Discussion continued regarding the possibilities of getting <br />refunds, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we have <br />already sized the lines along SR 60 to take in the property <br />behind some of the developments. Now the DCA is saying make <br />some of that 1/5; so, it appears we have oversized the lines, and <br />somebody has already paid for that. <br />Mr. Rogers addressed their third concern, noting they orig- <br />inally asked for 8 years for' maximum reservation of services <br />instead of 5, and he felt some projects may require a much <br />longer time horizon. He stated that this massive legislation is <br />going to <br />slow down.the whole process <br />of development. He <br />brought <br />SEP 111990 <br />25,c <br />F��E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.