Laserfiche WebLink
MAR 19 1991 <br />y� >_ <br />BOOK 9 �' <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert noted that she <br />seconded the Motion for discussion with no comment on the credit. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stated that he was not going to make <br />that part of the Motion, although he still felt sympathetic to <br />crediting the $143,000. <br />Commissioner Eggert did not want to deal with credit until <br />we get an accounting. She understood that the Motion is just <br />saying that the 1985 agreement is valid and we are going to start <br />there and see what happens. We are going to assume the $143,000 <br />was passed over in good faith. <br />In addition, but not as part of his Motion, Commissioner <br />Scurlock hoped that the County Attorney and the County <br />Administrator would interface with Mr. Nelson and his people on <br />any settlement or court action that has to be weighed. He <br />stressed that we need to move on. The impact fee is extended for <br />30 days from March 12, 1991, the date we passed the increases in <br />impact fees and utility rates. The 30 days is just for them to <br />give us notice of their intent to participate, which freezes them <br />at the current impact fee. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the new ordinance puts the new <br />rates into effect on April 1, 1991, and believed that is when the <br />30 days was chosen. <br />Commissioner Scurlock recalled that he made the Motion at <br />the rate hearing, and in that Motion he wanted 30 days for them <br />to identify to us that they wish to participate in an extended <br />program where the County Attorney would work out the developer's <br />agreement to accomplish that purpose. That may be done outside <br />the 30 days, but their letter of intent to participate needs to <br />be in here, and his Motion was 30 days from that public hearing, <br />which is April 12th. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that we would have to give that <br />same 30 -day option to anyone who wants to get in on the system, <br />but Commissioner Scurlock stated that it only would be for those <br />people who had a valid franchise with the County. It is a <br />different group, a different classification of customers. It is <br />not an individual unit; this is a much more complex issue because <br />it is a franchise agreement and what goes to it, in his mind, <br />sets it separate and different. <br />THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion <br />was voted on and carried unanimously. <br />47 <br />L—_ <br />