My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/19/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
3/19/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:12:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/19/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
accounting prior to this meeting. He realized it would take a <br />long time, but the only thing they really would settle for is <br />credit for at least 509 homes, fully vested, with the impact fees <br />paid back with interest. <br />Chairman Bird explained that in order to do that we would <br />have to go back prior to 1985, and Mr. Nelson agreed it would <br />have to be pre -1985, because as he has said over and over again, <br />had the County done the job, collected the proper amounts and <br />enforced the terms of its provisions, the money would have been <br />there. They feel this should have been taken care of at the time <br />the park was being sold. Had the County been up on their <br />accounting, all they would have had to do was tell <br />Florida -Atlantic how much they owed the County. They then could <br />have taken that amount of money and invested it, and the interest <br />on that amount of money over these past 6 years would have put a <br />whopping amount of money in that account. They are willing to <br />wait for a proper accounting, but they would like an extension on <br />the April 1st or April 12th date until this is ironed out for <br />their park, because their park is unique. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt that if there is a dispute about <br />whether the park owner can pass through the impact fees to the <br />residents, that dispute is between the owner and the residents <br />because that is their contractual arrangement, and if we do <br />anything less, we are going to get ourselves into more legal <br />problems, not less. He believed the bottom line is that every <br />other customer of the system would have to make up whatever <br />shortfall there is. It would not be paid for by the taxpayers, <br />but by the customers of the system. We could play some little <br />game and adjust rates and recover them in the rate structure <br />versus the impact fee, but that would be dishonest, in his <br />opinion. He believed the 1985 agreement was entered into in good <br />faith and with the concurrence of the property owners' represen- <br />tatives, and that is the point where we should begin. He knew <br />that is not pleasant and that nobody will be happy about that, <br />but felt that is the only responsible thing we can do. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Eggert, that the Board abide by the <br />1985 agreement; give an accounting from 1985 to date; <br />and maintain the Commission's position to enforce the <br />1985 agreement and those impact fees, but take no <br />position on whether the park owner can pass on those <br />fees and charges to the residents. <br />46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.